HomeMy WebLinkAbout300 Airport Boulevard - Environmental DocumentPrint Form
Notice of Determination
To:
® Office of Planning and Research
U.S. Mail: Street Address:
P.O. Box 3044 1400 Tenth St., Rm 113
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Sacramento, CA 95814
® County Clerk
County of: San Mateo
Address: 555 County Center #1
Redwood City, CA 94063
Appendix D
From:
Public Agency: City of Burlingame
Address: 501 Primrose Roaf � a s
7ff IN THE -,r-Gi ^F of THE
Burlingame, CA 94010 n,r;rif:.r_.RKRrUORDER
C-mri'y CALIF,
Contact:Kevin Gardiner
Phone:650-558-7250 AUG 2 6 Z 1
p' II�E.f�i, aunty Clerk
Lead Agency (if different f ����V��:
y- .
Address: L"Panty uutk
Contact: A VEGA
Phone:
SUBJECT. Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public
Resources Code.
State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted to State Clearinghouse):2010122012
Project Title: 300 Airport Boulevard/Burlingame Point Office/Life Science Campus
Project Applicant: Burlingame Point LLC
Project Location (include county): APN: 026-350-130 - County of San Mateo
Project Description:
Amendment to a previously -approved project consisting of two 5-story buildings, one 7-story building and one 8-story
building dedicated to office/life science uses with retail and food services on the first floor, these buildings total
730,000 square feet. In addition, there would be a two-story amenities building (37,000 SF), which would include a
child care facility, an indoor and outdoor exercise facility and cafeteria. Parking would be provided in a 5-story
parking structure, in a podium level parking area below the four office/life science buildings, and in smaller parking
lots scattered throughout the site. An Addendum to the previously certified EIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA.
This is to advise that the City of Burlingame has approved the above
( X❑ Lead Agency or ❑ Responsible Agency)
described project on August 22 2016 and has made the following determinations regarding the above
(date)
described project.
1. The project [ ] will ❑ will not] have a significant effect on the environment.
2. X❑ 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.
3. Mitigation measures [x❑ were ❑ were not] made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan [ x❑ was ❑ was not] adopted for this project.
5. A statement of Overriding Considerations [ x❑ was ❑ was not] adopted for this project.
6. Findings [X❑ were ❑ were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval, or the
negative Declaration, is available to the General Public at:
Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Signature (Public Agency):
Title: Community Development Director
Date: August 24, 2016 Date Received for filing at OPR:
Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code.
Reference Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code. Revised 2011
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
SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY.
LEAD AGENCY I LEADAGENCY EMAIL
RECEIPT NUMBER:
41 — 8262016 —
CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (if applicable)
DATE
08262016
COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING
NUMBER
San Mateo_
(DOCUMENT
PROJECT TITLE
300 Airport Blvd/Burlingame Point Office
PROJECT APPLICANT NAME
PROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL
PHONE NUMBER
K Gardiner
PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP CODE
PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box)
❑✓ Local Public Agency School District
Other Special District State Agency
Private Entity
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
❑ Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
$3,070.00
$
0.00
❑ Mitigated/Negative Declaration (MND)(ND)
$2,210.25
$
0.00
❑ Certified Regulatory Program document (CRP)
$1,043.75
$
0.00
❑ Exempt from fee
❑ Notice of Exemption (attach)
❑ CDFW No Effect Determination (attach)
El Fee previously paid (attach previously issued cash receipt
copy)
❑ 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:
❑ Cash ❑ Credit '❑ Check ❑ Ot er
TOTAL RECEIVED
$
50.00
SIGNATURE
AGENCY OF FILING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE
X
Besz de la Vega - County Clerk
ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY - CDFW/ASB COPY - LEAD AGENCY COPY - COUNTY CLERK DFW 753.5a (Rev. 20151215)
County of San Mateo
Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder
Mark Church
555 County Center
Redwood City, CA, 94063
Finalization 2016052409
8/26/16 4:04 pm
021 36
Item Title
1 EIRA
EIR Administrative Fee
Document ID Amount
DOC# 2016-000275 50.00
Time Recorded 4:04 pm
Total 50.00
Payment Type Amount
Check tendered 50.00
# 1127
Amount Due 0.00
THANK YOU
PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT
FOR YOUR RECORDS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM
BURLINGAME POINT PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
PREPARED BY:
ICF International
620 Folsom Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107
July 2016
�1
ICF International. 2016. Burlingame Point Project. Environmental Impact
Report Addendum. July. (ICF 00014.16.) San Francisco, CA. Prepared for the
City of Burlingame, Burlingame, CA.
Contents
Listof Tables......................................................................................................................................... iii
Listof Figures........................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations...................................................................................................... v
Page
Chapter1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
Background................................................................................................................................1-1
Previously Certified Final EIR........................................................................................................1-1
1.2
CEQA Review of the Updated Project........................................................................................1-1
1.3
Addendum Organization...........................................................................................................1-2
Chapter 2 Project Description...................................................................................................................2-1
2.1
Project Location.........................................................................................................................2-1
2.2
Previously Proposed Project......................................................................................................2-2
ProposedEntitlements.................................................................................................................2-2
ProposedSite Plan........................................................................................................................2-2
Site Access, Circulation, and Parking............................................................................................2-4
Open Space and Landscaping.......................................................................................................2-5
Activity/Employment....................................................................................................................2-5
Construction Schedule.................................................................................................................2-6
2.3
Revised Project..........................................................................................................................2-6
Revised Project Entitlements and Site Plan..................................................................................2-6
Site Access, Circulation, and Parking............................................................................................2-8
Open Space and Landscaping.......................................................................................................2-9
Activityand Employment.............................................................................................................2-9
ConstructionSchedule...............................................................................................................2-10
2.4
Comparison of Previously Proposed Project and Revised Project...........................................2-10
2.5
Required Approvals for the Revised Project............................................................................2-12
Chapter3 Environmental Analysis..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1
Introduction to the Environmental Analysis..............................................................................3-1
Organizationof This Section.........................................................................................................3-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts............................................................................................3-1
3.2
Impacts Not to Be Evaluated.....................................................................................................3-1
Introduction.................................................................................................................................3-1
Land Use, Plans, and Policies........................................................................................................3-5
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Contents
BiologicalResources.....................................................................................................................3-6
CulturalResources........................................................................................................................3-8
Hydrologyand Water Quality.......................................................................................................3-9
Geologyand Soils.......................................................................................................................3-11
Hazards and Hazardous Materials..............................................................................................3-12
Populationand Housing.............................................................................................................3-14
PublicServices............................................................................................................................3-15
Utilitiesand Service Systems......................................................................................................3-16
Agricultural, Forestry, and Mineral Resources...........................................................................3-17
3.3 Topics Requiring Additional Analysis.......................................................................................3-18
VisualQuality..............................................................................................................................3-18
Transportation............................................................................................................................3-22
AirQuality...................................................................................................................................3-30
ClimateChange..........................................................................................................................3-41
Noise...........................................................................................................................................3-45
Parks and Wind Effects on Recreation.......................................................................................3-53
Chapter4 CEQA Conclusions............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 CEQA Conclusion.......................................................................................................................4-1
Appendices
Appendix A — Transportation Memorandum for the Revised Project
Appendix B — Wind Study for the Revised Project
I
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum II ICF 00014.16
Contents
List of Tables
Table
Page
2-1
Previously Proposed Project Uses at the Project Site..................................................................2-3
2-2
Revised Project Uses at the Project Site.......................................................................................2-7
2-3
Comparison of Previously Proposed Project and Revised Project Uses.....................................2-11
3-1
Comparison of Impacts between Previously Proposed Project and Revised Project...................3-2
3-2
Previously Proposed Project Trip Estimates...............................................................................3-23
3-3
Revised Project Trip Estimates...................................................................................................3-28
3-4
Previously Proposed Project Construction -Period Criteria Pollutant Emissions .......................3-32
3-5
Previously Proposed Project Daily Operational Air Pollutant Emissions....................................3-33
3-6
Comparison of Construction -Related GHG Emissions................................................................3-42
3-7
Summary of Operational GHG Emissions from the Previously Proposed Project ......................3-43
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum III ICF 00014.16
Contents
List of Figures
Figure Follows Page
1 Project Location............................................................................................................................2-2
2 Previously Proposed Project Site Plan..........................................................................................2-2
3 Revised Project Site Plan..............................................................................................................2-8
4 Comparison of Site Plans............................................................................................................2-12
5 Comparison of Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation.................................................................2-12
6 Comparison of Open Spaces.......................................................................................................2-12
7 Comparison of Parking Plan Layout............................................................................................2-12
8 Building Elevations — Office........................................................................................................2-12
9 Building Elevations — Office........................................................................................................2-12
10 Building Elevations — Amenities Center......................................................................................2-12
11 Building Elevations — Parking Structure......................................................................................2-12
12 Building Elevations — Parking Structure......................................................................................2-12
13 Visual Simulations — Coyote Point Recreation Area...................................................................3-18
14 Visual Simulations — Northbound US 101...................................................................................3-20
15 Visual Simulations—Southbound US 101...................................................................................3-20
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum �v 1CF00014.16
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Previously Proposed Project
300 Airport Boulevard Project
Project Site
300 Airport Boulevard Site
dBA
A -weighted decibels
ALUC
Airport Land Use Committee
ALUP
Airport Land Use Plan
APN
Anza Point North
APS
Anza Point South
ABAG
Association of Bay Area Governments
BAAQMD
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART
Bay Area Rapid Transit
BAWSCA
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
BMPs
best management practices
BSD
Burlingame School District
CBC
California Building Code
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CALGreen
California Green
Caltrans
California Department of Transportation
City
City of Burlingame
C/CAG
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
CAP
Clean Air Plan
CWA
Clean Water Act
CNEL
Community Noise Equivalent Level
EDR
Environmental Data Resources
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
ESA
Environmental Site Assessment
FTA
Federal Transit Administration
FAR
floor area ratio
Project Sponsor
Genzon Group
GHG
greenhouse gas
gsf
gross square feet
HVAC
heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning
in/sec
inch per second
ISG
Individual Supply Guarantee
ITE
Institute of Transportation Engineers
1-280
Interstate 280
LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Burlingame Point Project
July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
v ICF 00014.16
Contents
LOS
level of service
msl
mean sea level
MT CO2e
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
mg/m3
microgram per cubic meter
MRP
Municipal Regional Permit
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NOX
oxides of nitrogen
PM10
particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less
PM2.5
particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
PWWF
peak wet -weather flow
pph
person per household
ROG
reactive organic gas
Bay
San Francisco Bay
BCDC
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Bay Trail
San Francisco Bay Trail
SFO
San Francisco International Airport
SFPUC
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SMCWPPP
San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SMUHSD
San Mateo Union High School District
SFHA
Special Flood Hazard Area
SR
State Route
SWPPP
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC
toxic air contaminant
TIA
traffic impact analysis
TCMs
Transportation Control Measures
TDM
Transportation Demand Management
UWMP
Urban Water Management Plan
VIVIT
vehicle miles traveled
VdB
vibration decibels
V/C
volume to capacity
WDRs
Waste Discharge Requirements
WWTP
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum �� ICF 00014.16
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
In early 2015, the Genzon Group (Project Sponsor) purchased the 300 Airport Boulevard Site (Project
Site) in the city of Burlingame. The approximately 18.13-acre Project Site is located in the northeastern
portion of the city. Development of the Project Site would include four office/life science buildings and
an amenities building, with approximately 767,000 gross square feet (gsf) of floor area. In addition, the
project includes realignment of Airport Boulevard, above- and below -grade structured and surface
parking, improvements to open space along San Francisco Bay (Bay) and Sanchez Channel, and an
extension of the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) through the Project Site.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project was certified by the City of Burlingame
(City) on June 18, 2012. Since Final EIR certification, the Project Sponsor has submitted an application to
update the project design. Consequently, this addendum to the certified Final EIR addresses the
proposed changes. It has been prepared to satisfy requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). This document will be used by decision -makers in their consideration of whether to
approve the proposal for the project. For the purposes of this addendum, the 300 Airport Boulevard
proposal that was analyzed in the certified Final EIR is referred to as the "Previously Proposed Project,"
and the revised proposal that is addressed in this addendum is referred to as the "Revised Project."
Previously Certified Final EIR
In June 2012, City Council certified the Final EIR for the 300 Airport Boulevard Project (Previously
Proposed Project), as summarized in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this document. The Final EIR
included an Initial Study, which was used to scope out resource topics with no significant impact resulting
from the Previously Proposed Project. The following resource topics were not evaluated in the certified
Final EIR: agriculture and forestry resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous
materials, mineral resources, and public services. The certified Final EIR also included the Draft EIR, which
was published in December 2011, and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, which were published in
May 2012. Major conclusions for each environmental topic in the certified Final EIR are summarized in
Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this document. For ease of reference, this addendum incorporates the
discussion from the certified Final EIR regarding impacts that were evaluated for the Previously Proposed
Project. This approach allows the reader to compare more easily the differences between the Previously
Proposed Project and the Revised Project and understand any differences in the impacts by minimizing the
need to cross reference the certified Final EIR and this addendum.
1.2 CEQA Review of the Updated Project
When revisions are proposed to a project after an EIR has been certified, an agency must determine
whether an addendum or a subsequent EIR is the appropriate document for analyzing the potential
impacts of the revised project, pursuant to CEQA. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), a subsequent
EIR is required if:
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 1 1 1CF00014.16
Chapter 1. Introduction
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous
EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance emerges, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified
as complete.
If none of the above conditions apply, then an addendum is the appropriate environmental document to
analyze a revised project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e), the addendum must provide a
brief explanation regarding the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR. The necessary explanation is
set forth below.
As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this document, the Revised Project would maintain the
uses proposed under the Previously Proposed Project and retain the basic entitled positioning of the
buildings on the Project Site, with the same heights and overall bulk. In addition, the Revised Project
would maintain the general building square footage (approximately 767,000 gsf) and provide the same
amount of parking (2,318 stalls), which would be divided among a podium -level garage, five -level
parking structure, and surface parking lots. Although the amount of square footage by land use would
change slightly, this would result in a minor decrease in the number of employees and daily vehicle
trips. Therefore, given these considerations, no new significant impacts or increases in the severity of
previously identified significant impacts are expected to result from the Revised Project, thereby
rendering a subsequent EIR unnecessary. Accordingly, as described further in this document, an
addendum is the appropriate mechanism for CEQA review of the Revised Project.
The existing environmental conditions in the Project area are largely unchanged since the certification
of the Final EIR. There are no new major developments proposed in the immediate vicinity that would
substantially affect baseline conditions. Thus, the baseline is assumed to be the same as considered in
the EIR. Regarding cumulative impacts, the addendum considers new cumulative development in the
vicinity of the Project not proposed at the time the EIR was prepared (specifically the 1300 Bayshore
Highway project). However, similar to the cumulative projects considered in the EIR, the majority of
anticipated development in the city is not within the immediate vicinity of the Project. Further, since the
Revised Project is largely the same in scope as the Previously Proposed Project, there would be no
change to the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts.
1.3 Addendum Organization
Chapter 2, Project Description, provides a description of the Previously Proposed Project, a description of
the Revised Project, and a comparison of the Previously Proposed Project to the Revised Project.
Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, summarizes conclusions in the certified Final EIR and presents the
impacts of the Revised Project relative to the impacts of the Previously Proposed Project. Chapter 3 also
addresses environmental topics that could be altered by the Revised Project, including visual quality,
transportation, air quality, climate change, noise, and park and wind effects on recreation. All other
impact topics are not expected to be different from those outlined in the certified Final EIR. As such,
those topics are discussed briefly in Section 3.2, Impacts Not to Be Evaluated.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 1 Z 1CF 00014.16
Chapter 2
Project Description
In June 2012, the Burlingame City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
300 Airport Boulevard Project (Previously Proposed Project).' As approved, the Previously Proposed
Project included four office/life science buildings and an amenities building, with approximately
767,000 gross square feet (gsf) of floor area. In addition, the Previously Proposed Project included
realignment of Airport Boulevard, above- and below -grade structured and surface parking,
improvements to open space along the San Francisco Bay (Bay) and Sanchez Channel, and an extension
of the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) through the Project Site. In early 2015, the Genzon Group
(Project Sponsor) purchased the Project Site and is now proposing to update the Project design. The
Burlingame Point Project (Revised Project) would result in minimal changes to the original site plan and
would retain the basic entitled position of the buildings on the Project Site, overall height and square
footage of each building, and parking. Design refinements include the configuration of site amenities,
parking, and open space as well as building architecture.
In addition to a description of the Project Site, this chapter provides a description of the Previously
Proposed Project and the Revised Project as well as a comparison of the two projects.
2.1 Project Location
The approximately 18.13-acre Project Site is located in the northeastern portion of the City of
Burlingame (City). The Project Site, which was formerly occupied by the Burlingame Drive -In Theater, is
currently vacant and consists of impervious surfaces and vegetation. As shown in Figure 1, the Project
Site is north of US 101 and immediately adjacent to the Bay to the east and Sanchez Channel to the west.
The Project Site is currently accessible from Beach Road and bounded by Airport Boulevard to the north,
Airport Boulevard and the Bay to the east, light -industrial buildings along Beach Road to the south, and
Sanchez Channel to the west. The Bay Trail runs adjacent to the Project Site and connects to the Coyote
Point Recreation Area. The Project Site consists of two parcels: Assessor's Parcel Numbers 026-350-130
and 026-350-080.
The Project Site is within the Anza Point subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan. This subarea, with a land
use designation of Anza Point Waterfront Commercial, is divided into two separate zoning districts:
Anza Point North (APN) and Anza Point South (APS). The Project Site is in the APN zoning district.
The 300 Airport Boulevard Project EIR included an analysis of changes to the Bayfront Specific Plan and APN
zoning district regulations, which would apply to the entirety of the APN subarea and zoning district. This
includes the 300 Airport Boulevard site and an adjacent undeveloped 8.58-acre area at 350 Airport Boulevard.
The certified Final EIR analyzed the potential effects of proposed planning and zoning changes on the 350
Airport Boulevard site at a programmatic level. However, the Burlingame Point Project encompasses only
development at 300 Airport Boulevard. Therefore, this EIR Addendum does not consider the analysis for the
350 Airport Boulevard site, except for the wind analysis.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 2 1 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 2. Project Description
2.2 Previously Proposed Project
Proposed Entitlements
The Previously Proposed Project would require amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan as well as
zoning regulations to allow for a greater height and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR)2 of 1.0
(an increase from the current maximum FAR of 0.6). Such amendments would also change setback
requirements to allow an additional permitted use (i.e., incidental food and retail) within the APN
zoning district and certain changes to parking regulations. Development would also require rezoning
a 0.4-acre portion of the Project Site from the APS zoning district to the APN zoning district.
Therefore, the land use entitlements listed below would need to be requested from and approved by
the City.
• Amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan and zoning regulations to increase the allowable FAR
for office uses from 0.6 to 1.0 and the maximum allowed FAR for commercial recreation facilities
from 0.5 to 1.0. Deletion of the requirement for a conditional use permit for commercial
recreational facilities with a FAR greater than O.S.
• Amendments to the APN zoning regulations to allow for changes to the required front, shoreline,
below -grade, and parking setbacks.
• Amendments to the APN zoning regulations to allow for the increased height of buildings.
• Amendments to the Anza Point Land Use Map to reflect rezoning of portions of the Project Site
from APS to APN.
• Rezoning of a small portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 026-350-130 along the south side of
the Project Site from APS to APN.
• Amendments to the zoning regulations to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces
required if the Project proposes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for a
demand -generating use.
• Amendments to the zoning regulations to allow for incidental food establishments and retail
services in business campuses or professional office buildings of 20,000 gsf or more.
• Conditional use permit for childcare use.
• Vesting tentative parcel map to adjust property lines and realign the roadway through the
Project Site.
Proposed Site Plan
The Previously Proposed Project3 consisted of an office/life science campus development. As shown in
Figure 2, the Previously Proposed Project would comprise two five -story buildings (97 feet), one seven -
story building (129 feet), and one eight -story building (144 feet), totaling approximately 730,000 gsf.
2 FAR is a measure of building intensity, based on the ratio between the total floor area to be built on a site and the
size of that site.
3 The site plan for the Previously Proposed Project, as described in this section, differs slightly from what was
approved and entitled; however, the City determined that the environmental effects of the approved project were
similar to, and adequately addressed by, the certified Final EIR. Accordingly, this EIR Addendum compares the
Revised Project to the Previously Proposed Project as analyzed in the certified Final EIR.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 2 2 ICF 00014.16
SAN.
FRANCISCO
•BU.RLINGAME
POINT
SILICON
VALLEY40
A
-�'
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
BAY TRAIL
SITE COYOTE POINT4
RECREATION AREA
BURLINGAME
' STA ra
r
M
north gateway entry --
stormwater retention zone
bay spur trail '
'i •�1
kinetic art feature •r �r �
bicycle commuter facilities
appox. 1 00'shoreline band
fire access hammer head
Source: DES, 2010.
access to fisherman's park
vehicular garage entry
bicycle commuter facilities
t `l '' bay trail plaza and
• �� �,/ waterfront overlook
dining courtyard
planted mound
appox. 100' shoreline band
stormwater retention zone
bay trail
entry gateway
N
A
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 2
Previously Proposed Project Site Plan
Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum
Chapter 2. Project Description
These four buildings would be oriented in an east -west direction and divided by the realigned Airport
Boulevard. In addition, the office buildings would be supported by a 37,000 gsf amenities center, a
multi -level parking structure, and two below -grade parking areas. The five buildings, plus the amenities
center, would total 767,000 gsf, which calculates to a FAR of 0.97.
The Previously Proposed Project would include several uses at the Project Site but would house mainly
office/life science uses. At least 689,810 gsf would be dedicated to office/life science spaces. In addition,
the Project could include a total of 19,230 gsf of retail, 24,560 gsf of food services, and 33,400 gsf of
amenities, including a childcare facility and an exercise center.
A breakdown of the potential uses at the Project Site is provided in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Previously Proposed Project Uses at the Project Site (gsf)
Building
Office/Life
Science
Retail
Food Service
Amenities
(Childcare
and Other)
Subtotal
Building B1
135,520
5,080
5,400
-
146,000
Building B2
134,960
5,480
5,560
-
146,000
Building B3
195,330
3,570
5,500
-
204,400
Building B4
224,000
3,900
5,700
-
233,600
Amenities Center
-
1,200
2,400
33,400
37,000
Total
689,810
19,230
24,560
33,400
767,000
Source: DES Architects + Engineers, 2010.
Each office building (Buildings 131 through 134) would include a lobby with elevators, stairwells, and
space for office/life science tenants. In addition, first -floor areas could include retail space and food
service areas. The roofs would include a stair enclosure, elevator penthouse, and screened areas for
mechanical equipment. The first floor of the amenities center would include a reception space/lobby,
locker rooms, retail space, food services, and a childcare center. The second floor would include an
exercise area. To the east of the amenities building would be an outdoor children's play area, and to the
south would be a swimming pool.
Airport Boulevard would be realigned to bisect the Project Site. Currently, Airport Boulevard runs east
of the site before making a 90-degree turn at Fisherman's Park, after which Airport Boulevard runs
north of the Project Site. The Previously Proposed Project would realign Airport Boulevard so that it
would cross the Project Site, from the southeast corner to the northwest corner. Although Airport
Boulevard would bisect the Project Site, the campus would be connected by various pedestrian linkages
and paths.
The Previously Proposed Project would also include public access, open space, and landscaping. This
would involve mainly extension of the Bay Trail, as well as connecting pedestrian paths, along the Bay in
the eastern shoreline parcel; open space in the southeast corner of the Project Site; and the Bay Spur
Trail on the shoreline adjacent to Sanchez Channel. No buildings would be constructed within 100 feet of
the shoreline, which is on both sides of the Project Site. The shoreline band, together with the existing
western and eastern shoreline revetment, would be restored and rehabilitated to provide pedestrian
access.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 2_3 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 2. Project Description
Site Access, Circulation, and Parking
Vehicular Access and Circulation
Access to the Project Site would be from two signalized intersections. The realigned Airport Boulevard
would accommodate through traffic and meet the vehicle, pedestrian, and shuttle bus access and
circulation needs of the Previously Proposed Project. The driveway at 350 Beach Road would be
removed; access to the site would be from Airport Boulevard only. Basement parking would be
accessible from one pedestrian garage entry (between Buildings 131 and 132), three vehicular garage
entries (one north of Building 131, one south of Building B2, and one between Buildings B3 and 134), and
the parking structure.
Emergency vehicle access to each building would be provided from Airport Boulevard. General pick-up
and delivery operations would be conducted at the drop-off areas near the entrances to all buildings,
including the amenities center. Buildings 131 through B4 would have loading areas that would be set
away from Airport Boulevard.
Transportation Demand Management and Parking
Under the Previously Proposed Project, a TDM program would be implemented to reduce vehicular
traffic generated at the Project Site by 13 percent.4 The TDM program would include shuttle buses to
the Millbrae Intermodal Terminal and downtown Burlingame. Improved bicycle and pedestrian
linkages along the roadway and within the Project Site would support the use of alternative modes of
travel.
The TDM program would reduce the need for onsite parking because fewer vehicles would access the
Project Site. The Previously Proposed Project would provide onsite parking for the office/life science
uses, retail and cafe uses in the buildings as well as the retail and cafeteria, exercise, and childcare
uses within the amenities building. The parking would serve employees and visitors at Buildings 131
through B4 as well as the general public when using the amenities building and the Bay Trail. Parking
would be provided in surface lots, basements, and a garage. The Project Site would include 232
surface parking stalls, 1,185 basement parking stalls, and 901 parking -structure stalls, for a total of
2,318 stalls. Of the 2,318 stalls, 34 would be designated as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
parking.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Access
The Previously Proposed Project would include bicycle commuter facilities to encourage the
alternative mode of transportation. The Bay Trail and Bay Spur Trail system along the Sanchez
Channel would be used as the primary means of bicycle access to the Project Site (Class I Bike Path).
On Airport Boulevard, a 14-foot-wide inside shared lane would be provided for on -street bicycle
travel (Class III Bike Path). A wide shared lane would reduce the number of "dooring" incidences as
well as wrong -way and sidewalk riding. It would also help to prevent motorists from forcing cyclists
into the curb or parked cars.
4 Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. 2011. Burlingame Point Transportation Demand Management Program.
April 6.
Burlingame Point Project Z 4 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 2. Project Description
Pedestrian circulation improvements would include new sidewalks on both sides of Airport Boulevard,
walkways across landscaped areas at the Project Site, and crosswalks on Airport Boulevard. Walkways
would serve the bicycle commuter facilities and connect to Bay Trail segments and open space at
Sanchez Channel and the eastern shoreline. The intent of the roadway design would be to maintain low
vehicular speeds through the Project Site, which would enhance pedestrian movements and safety. On -
street parking would act as a traffic -calming feature and separate pedestrians from moving vehicles.
Unsignalized crosswalks would have special treatments, including textured paving and in -pavement
flashing lights.
Open Space and Landscaping
The Previously Proposed Project would include approximately 4.12 acres of open space and landscaped
areas. In addition, the Previously Proposed Project would include improvements along the eastern
shoreline of the Project Site, which would include Bay Trail/public access pathways and associated
landscaped open space areas (1.39 acres) and roadways (0.18 acre). Open space at the Project Site
would include a Bay Spur Trail and associated public access to and along Sanchez Channel, connections
to the Bay Trail through the center of the Project Site via the east -west pedestrian promenade, smaller
open space and landscaped areas throughout the Project Site, extension of the Bay Trail, and associated
open space improvements along the Bay in the offsite eastern shoreline parcel. In addition, open space
and landscaping throughout the Project Site would provide an additional amenity and offer gathering
spaces for employees and visitors.
Landscaping throughout the Project Site and along Airport Boulevard would include onsite trees, street
trees, shrubs, ground cover, berms, and decorative paved surfaces. Also included would be curvilinear
concrete walls, mounds with native grasses, and other native and appropriate plant materials. In
addition, the stormwater retention and treatment areas included at the Project Site would reduce
drainage impacts but also serve as landscape elements. The landscape design throughout the Project Site
would provide a wind -protected outdoor environment that would integrate with the new plazas and the
extension of the Bay Trail. Amenities included in the design would include gateways at the south and
north entries, dining courtyards, plazas, and a children's play area that would be attached to the
amenities center. To accommodate the Previously Proposed Project, several existing trees would be
removed. A total of 43 trees (17 onsite trees and 26 street trees) would be removed and replaced with
landscaping, in accordance with the landscape plan for the project.
Activity/Employment
As stated above, the Previously Proposed Project could be used as an office or a life science campus or
any combination thereof. In addition, the Previously Proposed Project could include up to 19,230 gsf of
retail space and up to 24,560 gsf for food services. If the Previously Proposed Project were to include
only office uses in Buildings 131 through B4, it is estimated that approximately 2,433 office employees
would be generated.s In addition, the amenities center could employ approximately 42 individuals,6 for a
total of 2,475 employees under the office scenario of the Previously Proposed Project. If the Previously
5 DES Architects + Engineers, Memorandum from Tom Gilman and Kenny Hung to Maureen Brooks, City of
Burlingame Planning Manager, March 3, 2011. This estimate assumes 300 gsf per employee, based on similar
office density rates on the San Francisco Peninsula (730,000 gsf of office/300 gsf = —2,433 employees).
6 Association of Bay Area Governments. 1995.19871nput-Output Model and Economic Multipliers for the
San Francisco Bay Region. March. Multiplier for "amusement and recreational services" averages 870 gsf per
employee. As such, 37,000 gsf of proposed amenities center/870 gsf = —42 employees.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 2-5 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 2. Project Description
Proposed Project were to include only life science uses in Buildings 131 through B4, approximately 1,825
life science jobs would be created.? When added to the 42 employees at the amenities center, the life
science scenario of the Previously Proposed Project would provide jobs for approximately 1,867 people.
In terms of employment growth at the Project Site, office uses would generate the greatest need for
employees, compared with life science, retail, food, or amenity center uses. The administrative areas of a
life science uses would have a density similar to that of a corporate office; however, the research and
laboratory uses would have lower densities. In addition, the retail and food service uses would not
generate as many employees compared with an office -only scenario in Buildings B1 through B4.
Therefore, the 300 Airport Boulevard Project EIR applied and analyzed the most conservative scenario,
with approximately 2,475 office and amenities center employees at the Project Site.
Construction Schedule
Under the Previously Proposed Project, construction at the Project Site would consist of two
construction phases, which may occur at the same time or overlap. Phase 1 would construct Buildings
131 and B2, realign and rebuild Airport Boulevard, and most likely construct the amenities center. It is
anticipated that Phase 1 construction would last approximately 14 months. Phase 2 would construct
Buildings B3 and B4, the basement (podium) parking, and the parking structure. Phase 2 construction is
anticipated to begin after Phase 1 of construction is completed. There are currently no structures at the
Project Site; as such, the Previously Proposed Project would not require demolition and disposal of
existing buildings. Alternatively, the Previously Proposed Project could include one construction phase
only. This would consist of realignment of Airport Boulevard, grading, utilities installation, construction
of the underground parking structure, construction of all buildings, and landscaping and public access
improvements in a single phase.
Previously Proposed Project excavation depths would vary from 0 to 7.5 feet from the finish floor of the
basement garage. As such, the maximum excavation would be at an elevation of 5.5 feet below mean sea
level. The proposed excavation would involve approximately 75,000 cubic yards of excavated material.
About 40,000 cubic yards of the excavated material would be exported offsite; about 35,000 cubic yards
would be used as backfill material or grading material at the Project Site. Typical equipment that would
be used during construction would include large machinery for earthwork, one or two pile-driver rigs,
large concrete pumps, concrete trucks, large cranes for steel and exterior facade installation, and typical
delivery vehicles and small trucks. The number of truck deliveries would range from 10 to 40 per day.
2.3 Revised Project
Revised Project Entitlements and Site Plan
As with the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would include redevelopment of an
approximately 18.13-acre site located at 300 Airport Boulevard. When the Previously Proposed Project
was approved in June 2012, the majority of land use entitlements, zoning amendments, and
amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan, as listed above, were approved. However, the Revised Project
would require the following additional entitlements:
7 DES Architects + Engineers. Memorandum from Tom Gilman and Kenny Hung to Maureen Brooks, City of
Burlingame Planning Manager, March 3, 2011. This estimate assumes 400 gsf per employee, based on similar life
science density rates on the San Francisco Peninsula (730,000 gsf of life science/400 gsf = —1,825 employees).
Burlingame Point Project 2 6 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 2. Project Description
• An amendment to the commercial design review
• Final parcel map, subject to approval by City Council
The Revised Project would consist of an office/life science campus development. As shown in Figure 3,
two office buildings, an amenity building, and a parking structure would be situated west of the
realigned Airport Boulevard, and two office buildings would be situated east of the road. One level of
parking, physically separated by Airport Boulevard into two areas, would be provided in a below -grade
podium (basement). No buildings would be constructed within the 100-foot shoreline band. The Revised
Project would comprise two five -story buildings (97 feet), one seven -story building (129 feet), and one
eight -story building (144 feet),$ totaling approximately 739,857 gsf. These four buildings would be
oriented in an east -west direction and divided by the realigned Airport Boulevard. In addition, the office
buildings would be supported by a 26,900 gsf amenities center (32 feet in height),9 a multi -level parking
structure (57.7 feet in height), and two below -grade parking areas. The five buildings, plus the amenities
center, would total 766,757 gsf, which calculates to a FAR of 0.97. The Revised Project would include
several uses at the Project Site but mainly office/life science uses. At least 703,370 gsf would be
dedicated to office/life science spaces, plus 8,538 gsf for office conference room space. In addition, the
Revised Project could include a total of 6,633 gsf of retail, 35,566 gsf of food services, and 12,650 gsf of
other amenities, including a childcare facility and an exercise center.
A breakdown of the potential uses at the Project Site is provided in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Revised Project Uses at the Project Site (gsf)
Office
Office/Life Conference
Building Science Space Retail
Amenities
Food (Childcare
Service and Other)
Subtotal
Building 1 124,195 — 3,235
21,316 —
148,746
Building 2 137,224 8,538 3,398
— —
149,160
Building 3 206,452 — —
— —
206,452
Building 4 235,299 — —
— —
235,299
Amenities Center — — —
14,250 12,650
26,900
Total 703,370- 8,538 6,633
35,566 12,650
766,757
Source: Gensler, 2016.
Note:
a• The total for office/life science includes elevators in the promenade between the basement
-level
parking and the ground floor. These are not located inside any
of the buildings, but they add
200 gsf to
the office/life science space.
The building entry lobbies and ground -floor amenities would be oriented to connect to the pedestrian
promenade directly. The amenity building would include a childcare facility with a playground, a fitness
center, and a food service space. This building would be accessible to the public. However, the office
conference space in Building 2 would serve the project tenants exclusively; the conference space would
not be available for public use. Within the overall building massing, horizontal setbacks would be
B The heights of the office buildings are measured from the average top -of -curb level to the top of the parapet on
the top floor. The measurements exclude mechanical screening and the penthouse enclosures.
9 The height of the amenities buildings is measured to the top of the parapet surrounding the roof. Additional
height extends to the top of the elevator overrun or penthouse.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 2 7 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 2. Project Description
introduced where the buildings front the pedestrian promenade. This would create terraces on the
setbacks that overlook the promenade. The horizontal setbacks would also reduce the overall mass and
bulk of the buildings. The buildings could also include landscaped rooftop terraces, which employees
could access. The proposed buildings would be designed for Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) Gold certification.
Site Access, Circulation, and Parking
Vehicular Access and Circulation
Access to the Project Site would be from the realigned Airport Boulevard, using two signalized
intersections at previously entitled locations. The realigned Airport Boulevard would accommodate
through traffic and provide vehicle, pedestrian, and shuttle bus access and facilitate circulation within
the Project Site. The driveway at 350 Beach Road would be removed; access to the site would be from
Airport Boulevard only. In addition, traffic -calming measures would be implemented. Basement parking
would be accessible from pedestrian garage entries (two entries from the plaza and one entry within
each building), three vehicular garage entries (one north of Building 1, one south of Building 2, and one
north of Building 3), and the parking structure. Access to all parking would be through signalized
intersections, thereby keeping cars outside of the pedestrian promenade.
Loading dock access would also be routed through the signalized intersections. This would separate
service vehicles from the pedestrian promenade and provide the most direct path to the loading dock
and service area for each building. Separate pullouts for shuttles would be located away from the
pedestrian promenade. Passenger drop-off/pick-up areas would be located toward the center of the
Project Site for direct access to the pedestrian promenade. However, crosswalk areas within traffic -
calming zones would separate pedestrians from the drop-off/pick-up areas. A separate drop-off/pick-up
area would be provided at the amenities building.
Transportation Demand Management and Parking
A TDM program would be implemented to reduce traffic to/from the Project Site, resulting in
approximately 13 percent reduction in vehicle trips compared to a scenario without TDM. This would
also result in an associated reduction in parking demand. The Project Site would include 214 surface
parking stalls, 878 basement parking stalls, and 1,226 parking stalls in the parking structure, for a total
of 2,318 stalls. Of the 2,318 stalls, 50 would be designated as ADA parking.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Access
The Revised Project would include bicycle commuter facilities to encourage the alternative mode of
transportation. Bicycle access to the Project Site would be provided along the Bay Trail and also along
the shared bicycle lanes on Airport Boulevard. Public bicycle parking would be provided on the Project
Site where cyclists would enter as well as close to the entry lobby for each building. Public bicycle
parking would also be provided in front of the amenities building. Additional bicycle parking would be
provided in the basement level to meet the needs of tenants.
Pedestrian circulation improvements would include new sidewalks on both sides of Airport Boulevard,
crosswalks on Airport Boulevard, and an east -west pedestrian promenade that would bisect the Project
Site. Walkways would serve the bicycle commuter facilities and connect to Bay Trail segments. The
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 2 8 ICF 00014.16
------- -- ---i
„C -- - L - _ - - - - - - - --
' Mw
1-
.......... ......
Ir
OFFI OFFIC-TAREA
G 3 LDEN
- 1
P
BpY OVEJL' .
��I •il1 ,1;1
-'
OFFICE OFFICE _J:: lift1�
k-TG 4 CLD6 2
i
PARKING STRUCTURE
AMENITY'
~ BUILDING
I
I
N
Source: GENZON & Gensler, 2016. NOT TO SCALE
Figure 3
Revised Project Site Plan
Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum
Chapter 2. Project Description
pedestrian promenade would be publicly accessible and the path of entry to the office buildings. The
landscaping and pedestrian promenade between the buildings would be designed for the pedestrian
experience rather than vehicles. The Project Site would include pedestrian crossing zones that would
flow from the pedestrian walkways to the promenade. Traffic -calming features, in the form of raised and
changed paving patterns, would be located where the promenade would cross Airport Boulevard. The
crosswalk areas within the traffic -calming zone would separate pedestrians from any personal vehicles
that might pull over to drop off or pick up passengers. In addition, a pedestrian safety island would be
located in the center of Airport Boulevard at the pedestrian promenade.
Open Space and Landscaping
The Bay Trail currently runs along the edges of the Project Site and connects to the Coyote Point
Recreation Area. Wind surfing and the Poplar Creek Golf Course are also in the vicinity. The Revised
Project would provide connections between the proposed open space at the Project Site and these
existing recreational opportunities. The Project would also provide an open space area at the eastern
end of the Project Site, facing the Bay. This open space area would connect directly to the Bay Trial and
provide a publicly accessible landscaped area with access to adjacent ground -floor restaurants at
proposed at Building 1. Open space at the Project Site would also include a Bay Spur Trail on the
western portion of the Project Site and associated public access to and along Sanchez Channel. In
general, open space and landscaping throughout the Project Site would provide an additional amenity
and offer gathering spaces for both employees and visitors.
Landscaping throughout the Project Site and along Airport Boulevard would include onsite trees, street
trees, shrubs, ground cover, berms, and decorative paved surfaces. Hardscape materials include the
natural stone pavers, concrete pavers, concrete sidewalks and driveways, wood decking, and asphalt
paving along Airport Boulevard and parts of the Bay Trail. Seating areas would use similar materials,
including stone, concrete, metal, and wood. In addition, the stormwater retention and treatment areas at
the Project Site would reduce drainage impacts but also serve as landscape elements. The landscape
design throughout the Project Site would provide a wind -protected outdoor environment that would
integrate with the new plazas and the extension of the Bay Trail. To accommodate the Revised Project,
several existing trees would be removed. A total of 43 trees (17 onsite trees and 26 street trees) would
be removed and replaced with landscaping, in accordance with the landscape plan for the Revised
Project.
Activity and Employment
The Project Site is located between the life sciences campuses of South San Francisco and the technology
campuses of Silicon Valley; therefore, the Revised Project could include tenants from either industry. If
the Revised Project were to include only office uses (including the conference space) in Buildings 1
through 4, it is estimated that approximately 2,37010 office employees would be generated. In addition,
the retail/food service space could employ approximately 90 individuals," and the amenities center
10 DES Architects + Engineers. Memorandum from Tom Gilman and Kenny Hung to Maureen Brooks, City of
Burlingame Planning Manager, March 3, 2011. This estimate assumes 300 gsf per employee, based on similar
office density rates on the San Francisco Peninsula (711,900 gsf of office/300 gsf = —2,370 employees).
11 Association of Bay Area Governments. 1995.19871nput-Output Model and Economic Multipliers for the
San Francisco Bay Region. March. Multiplier for "retail trade" and food services averages 450 gsf per employee
(42,200 gsf of retail and food services/450 gsf = —90 employees).
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 2-9 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 2. Project Description
could employ approximately 15 individuals,12 for a total of 2,475 employees under the office scenario of
the Revised Project. If the Revised Project were to include only life science uses in Buildings 1 through 4
(including the conference space), approximately 1,780 life science jobs13 would be created. In addition
to the other employees at the Project Site, the life science scenario of the Revised Project would provide
jobs for approximately 1,885 people.
It is currently envisioned that Buildings 1 through 3 would include office uses, and Building 4 would
include life science uses. However, office uses generate the most employment; therefore, this document
conservatively assumes that all buildings would include office uses, with a total of approximately
2,475 employees. The Project Sponsor proposes that the Project Site will be operational by 2018.
Construction Schedule
Under the Revised Project, construction at the Project Site would consist of one construction phase,
beginning in fall 2016 and ending in summer 2018, for a total construction duration of approximately 22
months. There are currently no structures at the Project Site; as such, the Revised Project would not
require demolition and disposal of existing buildings. The maximum depth of excavation would vary
from 0 to 7.5 feet from the finish floor of the basement garage. As such, the maximum excavation would
be at an elevation of 5.5 feet below mean sea level. The proposed excavation would involve
approximately 77,250 cubic yards of excavated material. Approximately 32,400 cubic yards of soil
would be exported offsite, and about 44,850 cubic yards would be used as backfill material or grading
material at the Project Site.
Typical equipment that would be used during construction of the Revised Project would include large
machinery for earthwork, one or two pile-driver rigs, large concrete pumps, concrete trucks, large
cranes for steel and exterior fagade installation, and typical delivery vehicles and small trucks. The
number of truck deliveries would range from 20 to 80 per day.
2.4 Comparison of Previously Proposed Project and
Revised Project
The key goal of the Project Sponsor is to minimize changes between the Previously Proposed Project and
the Revised Project. Therefore, the Revised Project retains the basic entitled position of the buildings on
the Project Site, stays within the entitled parking counts, and retains the entitled traffic -calming
measures. In addition, the office building massing would retain the same floor plate areas, building
heights, and overall bulk as the Previously Proposed Project. Design refinements pertain mainly to the
configuration of the amenities and open space as well as building architecture. However, the Revised
Project would differ from the Previously Proposed Project, as follows:
12 Association of Bay Area Governments. 1995.1987Input-Output Model and Economic Multipliers for the San
Francisco Bay Region. March. Multiplier for "amusement and recreational services" averages 870 gsf per
employee. As such, 12,650 gsf of proposed amenities center (childcare facility and exercise center)/870 gsf =
15 employees.
13 DES Architects + Engineers. Memorandum from Tom Gilman and Kenny Hung to Maureen Brooks, City of
Burlingame Planning Manager, March 3, 2011. This estimate assumes 400 gsf per employee, based on similar life
science density rates on the San Francisco Peninsula (711,900 gsf of life science/400 gsf = —1,780 employees).
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 2 10 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 2. Project Description
• Changes in the allocation of floor area for the proposed land uses, including the addition of a
conference space in Building 2.
• Slight reduction in total building area (approximately 250 gsf).
• Slight shifts in building footprints to accommodate additional open space adjacent to the Bay
and the Bay Trail.
• Shift in the location of Airport Boulevard by a maximum of 15 feet to the east to accommodate
building footprint relocations.
• Separation of vehicle and pedestrian zones and inclusion of a pedestrian promenade, bisecting
the Project Site in an east -west orientation.
• Reduced use of asphalt and increased green space.
• New parking entrances and truck access points.
• Increased basement area for parking.
• Third drive aisle on the top floor of the above -grade parking garage, within the entitled height
(with the exception of the overall elevator height due to manufacturer requirements).
• Construction occurring over one phase rather than two phases. (It is important to note that
although two phases were anticipated for the Previously Proposed Project, the EIR analyzed the
potential for a one -phase construction period as well.)
The Revised Project would reduce overall square footage at the Project Site by approximately 250 gsf.
The change in square footages is due to changes in the distribution of office, retail, food service, and
amenity uses. Table 2-3, below, shows the differences in uses between the Previously Proposed Project
and the Revised Project. As shown, office, office conference, and food service space would increase
compared with the Previously Proposed Project, while retail and amenity use (childcare and fitness
center) would decrease. Regardless, the number of employees (2,475, assuming the conservative
scenario for office uses rather than life science uses) would be approximately the same under both the
Previously Proposed Project and the Revised Project.
Table 2-3. Comparison of Previously Proposed Project and Revised Project Uses (gsf)
Office
Amenities
Office/Life
Conference
Food
(Childcare
Building Science
Space
Retail
Service
and Other)
Subtotal
Building 1-11,325
—
-1,845
15,916
—
Z746
Building 2 2,264
8,538
-2,082
-5,560
—
3,160
Building 3 11,122
—
-3,570
-5,500
—
2,052
Building 4 11,299
—
-3,900
-5,700
—
1,699
Amenities Center —
—
-1,200
11,850
-20,750
-10,100
Total 13,5600
8,538
-12,597
11,006
-20,750
-243
Source: Gensler, 2016.
Note:
a. The total for office/life science for the
Revised Project
includes 200 gsf for elevators
in the
promenade
between the basement -level parking and the ground floor.
Burlingame Point Project
2-11
July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
ICF 00014.16
Chapter 2. Project Description
Figures 4 through 7 compare the entitled site plans of the Previously Proposed Project with the
proposed site plan for the Revised Project. The elevations for Building 1, the amenities center, and the
parking garage are included in Figures 8 through 12, which provide representative views of the
proposed buildings.14
2.5 Required Approvals for the Revised Project
As the public agency with principal responsibility for approving the Revised Project, the City of
Burlingame would serve as the lead agency for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The Revised Project would be implemented pursuant to the Burlingame Municipal Code.
The Revised Project is expected to be subject to the following discretionary approvals from the City:
• Approval of this EIR Addendum to the certified Final EIR.
• Approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
• An amendment to the commercial design review for development of a new office/life science
campus, including four office/life science buildings, an amenities building, and a parking
structure. Design review shall be based on the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea in
the Bayfront Specific Plan and the Burlingame Commercial Design Guidebook.
• Approval of a final parcel map.
• Issuance of a building permit.
• Tree removal permit(s) as required by the Municipal Code.
• Any other discretionary approval required by the City to implement the Revised Project.
The Revised Project is expected to be subject to approvals from the following agencies:
• Bay Conservation and Development Commission
• City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Congestion Management Agency
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District
• California Department of Transportation
14 The design of Buildings 2, 3, and 4 would be similar to that presented of Building 1, although two of the buildings
would be taller (seven and eight stories in height, respectively).
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 2 12 Iff 00014.16
Previously Proposed Project
b3
all
, , •
IL
Source: GENZON & Gensler, 2016.
Revised Project
N
A
NOTTOSCALE
Figure 4
Comparison of Site Plans
Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum
Previously Proposed Project
OFFICE OFFICE
BLDG 3 \ BLDG 1 i
I A
I I
OFFICE OFFICE
BLDG 4 BLDG 2
1
ME
• - -
AMENITY
LF BUILDING
Source: GENZON & Gensler, 2016.
Revised Project
I III
OFFICE OFFICE O
BLDG 3 BLDG 1
I
I
OFFICE OFFICE
BLDG 4 BLDG 2 I
I
iPARKING STRUCTURE
AMENITY
- BUILDING
i Signalized Intersection
a
r ••, Project Site
N
A
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 5
Comparison of Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation
Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum
Previously Proposed Project
north gateway entry�
stormwater retention zone
bay spur trail
kinetic art feature
bicycle commuter facilities
i
appox. 100'shoreline band
fire access hammer head
a"
Revised Project
ACCESS ROAD -
BRIDGE I - �.:)
i.
GARAGE RAMP -
TERRACES
AND DINING
AREA
C
s
z
FIRE ACCESS m
HAMMERHEAD
ROOF
DECK PLAZA
OFFICE BLDG 3 OFFICE-BI--DG 1
NTRRL PROM .E,,,'1.L- t ENAD "� i
AN
76._� .-rt r0- - PLAZA
PLAZA
OFFICE BLDG 4 � OFFICE BLDG 2
I
v J
u;,!li• <s i, lip � e ". _ '
-
n � d
APPROX. 100' PARKING STRUCTURE W wlp
Ak
SHORELINE BAND AMENITY _.�
I
BUILDING
^" Y I
Source: GENZON & Gensler, 2016.
access to fisherman's park
vehicular garage entry
bicycle commuter facilities
bay trail plaza and
waterfront overlook
dining courtyard
planted mound
appox. 100'shoreline band
stormwater retention zone
bay trail
south entry gateway
N
A
NOT TO SCALE
FISHERMAN'S
PARK ACCESS
BAY TRAIL
VEHICULAR
GARAGE RAMP
DINING PLAZA &
EVENT LAWN
CENTRAL
OVERLOOK
BIORETENTION
AREA
OVERLOOK AND
DINING AREA
VEHICULAR
GARAGE RAMP
APPROX. 100'
SHORELINE
BAND
N
A
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 6
Comparison of Open Spaces
Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum
Previously Proposed Project
1
Source: GENZON & Gensler, 2016.
Revised Project
\►�11Y�i '��. wn�nnnnunununuuunnuuuunmlu�nY� al
PROPERTY LINE
Legend
❑ Additional Excavation
Basement Exit Ramp
N
A
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 7
Comparison of Parking Plan Layout
Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum
11
1011
Iloilo
I
I
IN
Source: GENZON & Gensler, 2016.
BUILDING 01 — SOUTH ELEVATION
3111l1110110115C j1112►M1.1I'mIQIMC1Its]►
�.6
Figure 8
Building Elevations — Office
Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum
Source: GENZON & Gensler, 2016.
BUILDING 01 —EAST ELEVATION
TD.
iM
Figure 9
Building Elevations — Office
Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum
T,O. PENjh4UE9mEtllLY9L�.,
�.-fi.
b
- TO�MkN
NOR"
b
_ LEVELb
- - - 30.6• n
b
LEVEL6 �
74 6
BUILDING 06 —WEST ELEVATION
T.O. PENTNOMEAMENITI
T.O. PARAPET
' LEVEL 6Y �
LEVEL 61
BUILDING 06 — SOUTH ELEVATION
T.O. PE
64' 6'
T.0 PARAPET
K A
LEVELO
_ U fi ro
BUILDING 06 — NORTH ELEVATION
TO. PENTNOU6EAMENRV& ,
64'--7
b
IEVEL 01
BUILDING 06 — EAST ELEVATION
Source: GENZON & Gensler, 2016.
Figure 10
Building Elevations — Amenities Center
Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum
ia�;am���i r���
nrl■Il r�lli���i®—Iowa——
_ _ rlr.>�
��� �
�rI
i3�✓��� I ���i��ill...
MEMO
l
��l��NEW
� ����.����—
���_�■CIII��lil���ll=
omii��
MEMO —
I���■I��II� 11
11�_ _
NINE
OM
EN
MEMO
-
one �11���1��4J■���11�4
NONE
111101 j
�NONUNION!�M__ i NOW
MOEN
Wool
I�I��s_ l���li`�i11111I®�■��1
INEE11
1���1��® �1��_�I—�
MINES
_
ME
�� t/C99
INNER.�
— �9�I�li�La>Q.tl�
.ate �i�.—d�l�ii�lli��
r�lf� ��—I��l� _ _.ice
®illy _ II.O��a���i�f�i�rs•—~—i■
_
10010111101111lli"���!�
—■
®SIT .��.-- �
�� $ �
_�._� II����li9►'/��Y
loll
ICI■N��I
Figure 11
Building Elevations — Parking Structure
Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum
PARKING STRUCTURE —WEST ELEVATION
PARKING STRUCTURE — EAST ELEVATION
Source: GENZON & Gensler, 2016.
Figure 12
Building Elevations — Parking Structure
Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum
Chapter 3
Environmental Analysis
3.1 Introduction to the Environmental Analysis
Organization of This Section
The purpose of the analysis is to compare the impacts of the Previously Proposed Project with the impacts
of the Revised Project. For each environmental topic, this environmental analysis section provides a
summary of impacts from the Previously Proposed Project, as discussed in the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) certified on June 18, 2012. This section also provides a discussion of the impacts under the
Revised Project, identifies mitigation measures that would still apply to the Revised Project, and discusses
the mitigation measures that would no longer apply to the Revised Project (if applicable).
Summary of Environmental Impacts
Table 3-1, below, summarizes the main conclusions for each environmental topic for both the Previously
Proposed Project and the Revised Project. As indicated in the table, all but one impact conclusion in the
certified Final EIR would remain the same for the Revised Project. Although some impacts would be
slightly less or slightly greater than those of the Previously Proposed Project, the changes would be
minor and would not affect the significance conclusions in the EIR. However, one mitigation measure
proposed in the certified Final EIR for the Previously Proposed Project' is no longer required under the
Revised Project, resulting in a lesser impact. As explained in Section 3.8 of this EIR Addendum, Air
Quality, because construction under the Revised Project would occur during only one phase, sensitive
receptors at the childcare center would not be present on the Project Site during the construction
period. Therefore, health risks and risks related to exposure to construction -related particulate matter
2.5 microns in diameter or less (PM2.5) and toxic air contaminant (TAC) concentrations associated with
the Revised Project would be below the regulatory thresholds, resulting in a less -than -significant impact.
Mitigation Measure AQ-5.1, as required for the Previously Proposed Project, would not be required for
the Revised Project.
3.2 Impacts Not to Be Evaluated
Introduction
Prior to release of the EIR for the Previously Proposed Project, an Initial Study (included in Appendix B
of the EIR) was prepared to scope out the environmental impacts that were found to be less
than significant. The Initial Study analyzed and scoped out the following environmental topics:
1 As explained in Chapter 2, Project Description, the 300 Airport Boulevard Project EIR included 300 Airport
Boulevard Project (Previously Proposed Project) and an adjacent undeveloped 8.58-acre area at 350 Airport
Boulevard. The Burlingame Point Project encompasses only development at 300 Airport Boulevard. Therefore,
this EIR addendum does not consider the impacts of the 350 Airport Boulevard Project or the mitigation
measures proposed for the 350 Airport Boulevard Project only.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 1 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Table 3-1. Comparison of Impacts between the Previously Proposed Project and the Revised Project
Environmental Issue
Previously
Proposed
Project
Revised
Project
Change in
Impact
Impacts Not to Be Evaluated
Land Use
Conflicts with Adopted Land Use Plans and Polices
LTS
LTS
0
Division of an Established Community
NI
NI
0
Cumulative Land Use Impacts NI NI 0
B%ologicaFitesourcesOft = _ '
,.,-.
Effects on Sensitive Natural Communities LTS LTS 0
Loss of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States
PS/LTS
PS/LTS
0
Loss of Nesting Migratory Birds
PS/LTS
PS/LTS
0
Protection of Biological Resources
LTS
LTS
0
Conflicts with Habitat Conservation Plans
NI
NI
0
Cumulative Biological Resource Impacts
S/LTS
PS/LTS
0
Cultural Resourc
Impacts on Historical Resources NI
NI
0
Impacts on Archaeological Resources
PS/LTS
PS/LTS
0
Impacts on Paleontological Resource or Unique Geological Features
PS/LTS
PS/LTS
0
Disturbance of Human Remains
PS/LTS
PS/LTS
0
�
Hydrology
I
0
Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge
Requirements
LTS
LTS
0
Construction -related Water Quality Degradation, Erosion, and
Sedimentation
LTS
LTS
0
Operational Water Quality Degradation
LTS
LTS
0
Drainage Systems
LTS
LTS
0
Groundwater Supplies
LTS
LTS
0
100-year Flood Hazard
NI
NI
0
Sea -level Rise
PS/LTS
PS/LTS
0
Tidal and Wave Action Flooding
PS/LTS
PS/LTS
0
Cumulative Impacts
PS/LTS
PS/LTS
0
Geology and Soils
Exposure to Rupture of Known Earthquake Fault
LTS
LTS
0
Exposure to Ground Shaking
LTS
LTS
0
Exposure to Seismically Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction
LTS
LTS
0
Exposure to Landslides
LTS
LTS
0
Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
LTS
LTS
0
Exposure to Landslide, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction or
Collapse
LTS
LTS
0
Located on Expansive Soil
NI
NI
0
Septic Tanks or Alternative Waste Water Disposal Systems
NI
NI
0
Burlingame Point Project
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3_Z
July 2016
ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Environmental Issue
Previously
Proposed
Project
Revised
Project
Change in
Impact
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significant Hazard through Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of
Hazardous Materials
LTS
LTS
0
Significant Hazard Due to a Release of Hazardous Materials into the
Environment
LTS
LTS
0
Emit Hazardous Materials within 0.25 Mile of a School Located on a
Hazardous Material Site or within 2 Miles of an Airport
NI
NI
0
Physically Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or
Emergency Evacuation Plan
LTS
LTS
0
Exposure to Wildland Fires
NI
NI
0
Population and HousingPA, SON
Population Growth
LTS
LTS
0
Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts
LTS
LTS
0
Public Services
Impacts on Fire Protection
LTS
LTS
0
Impacts on Police Protection
LTS
LTS
0
Impacts on Schools
NI
NI
0
Impacts on Libraries
NI
NI
0
Utilities and Service Systems
Water Supply and Facilities
LTS
LTS
0
Water Treatment Facilities
LTS
LTS
0
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
PS/LTS
PS/LTS
0
Stormwater Drainage Facilities
NI
NI
0
Cumulative Impacts
LTS
LTS
0
Agricultural, Forestry, and Mineral Resources
Impacts on Agricultural Resources
NI
NI
0
Impacts on Forestry Resources
NI
NI
0
Impacts on Mineral Resources
NI
NI
0
Impacts to Be Evaluated
Visual Quality
Alteration of a Scenic Vista
LTS
LTS
0
Damage to Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway
NI
NI
0
Degradation of Existing Visual Character or Quality
LTS
LTS
0
New Sources of Light and Glare
LTS
LTS
0
Cumulative Visual Impacts
LTS
LTS
0
Transportation
Intersection Operations
SU
SU
0
Freeway Ramp Operations
LTS
LTS
0
Freeway Segment Operations
SU
SU
0
Air Traffic Patterns
NI
NI
0
Burlingame Point Project
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 3
July 2016
ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Previously
Proposed Revised Change in
Environmental Issue Project Project Impact
Transit Service, Pedestrian Facilities, and Bicycle Facilities LTS LTS 0
Site Access, Circulation, and Parking LTS LTS 0
Cumulative Transportation Impacts SU SU 0
Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans
SU
SU 0
Violation of Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality Standards
PS/LTS
PS/LTS 0
Compliance with BAAQMD CEQA Significance Criteria Regarding
SU
SU 0
Construction -related Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursor
Emissions
Compliance with BAAQMD Significance Criteria (Operation)
SU
SU 0
Exposure of PM2.5 and TACs during Construction and Operation
PS/LTS
PS/LTS —
CO Compliance with Ambient Air Quality Standards
LTS
LTS
0
Objectionable Odors
NI
NI
0
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
SU
SU
0
Climate Change
Generation of GHG Emissions
SU
SU
0
Conflict with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies, or Regulations
SU
SU
0
Noise-
r� ,
Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels during Construction
PS/LTS
PS/LTS
0
Exposure of Persons to Excessive Ground -borne Vibration Levels
during Construction
S/LTS
S/LTS
0
Exposure of People to Excess Traffic Noise
LTS
LTS
0
Increase in Ambient Noise Levels during Operation
LTS
LTS
0
Airport Noise
LTS
LTS
0
Cumulative Noise Impacts
LTS
LTS
0
Parks and Wind Effects on Recreation ykai�.
Effects on Windsurfing and Kiteboarding Recreational Resources
.ry
LTS
LTS
0
Existing Recreational Facilities
LTS
LTS
0
Cumulative Parks and Wind Impacts
LTS
LTS
0
Notes: SU = Significant and Unavoidable
0 = No Change in Impact S = Significant
— = Less Impact Compared to Previously Proposed Project PS = Potentially Significant
LTS = Less than Significant
NI = No Impact
BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
CO = carbon monoxide
GHG = greenhouse gas
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 4 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
agricultural/forestry resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,
mineral resources, and public services. The proposed design modifications to the Revised Project would
not change the analysis of these topics, as presented in the Initial Study. In addition, the Revised Project
would result in the same impacts for the following topics, which were analyzed in the EIR: land use,
biological resources, hydrology, population and housing, and utilities. All impact conclusions and/or
mitigation measures would be the same for these topics.
This section includes a summary of the findings in the EIR and explains why the impacts have not
changed under the Revised Project.
Land Use, Plans, and Policies
Summary of Previously Proposed Project. As stated in the Initial Study, the Previously Proposed
Project would not physically divide a community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan. As such, the certified Final EIR analyzed only the
Previously Proposed Project's consistency with adopted land use plans and policies. Plans and
regulations applicable to the project include the City of Burlingame (City) General Plan,z the Bayfront
Specific Plan, the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, the City of Burlingame Bicycle Transportation Plan,
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Bay Plan and Public Access
Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Bay Trail
Plan and Design Guidelines, and the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP).
The Previously Proposed Project would be generally consistent with the Bayfront Specific Plan goals and
development policies, BCDC Public Access Design Guidelines, the ABAG San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay
Trail) Plan and Design Guidelines, and the ALUP. In addition, the Previously Proposed Project would be
consistent with the Coyote Point Recreation Area Master Plan and the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan
within the City General Plan.
As described in the Bayfront Specific Plan, the majority of the Project Site falls within the Anza Point
North (APN) zoning district, but a small portion of the Project Site falls within the Anza Point South
(APS) zoning district. In each zoning district, the land use designation is Waterfront Commercial.
However, although APN permits hotels, offices, restaurants, training facilities, commercial recreation,
and publicly owned recreation areas, APS allows only office, manufacturing, recreation -related retail,
service businesses, and publicly owned recreation facilities. The Previously Proposed Project would
develop a swimming pool, a commercial recreation use, in the portion of the Project Site that is currently
zoned as APS. Therefore, changing the zoning to APN is needed to include the entire Project Site in the
APN zoning district and allow this commercial recreational component of the Previously Proposed
Project. In addition, the Previously Proposed Project would amend the Bayfront Specific Plan and the
APN zoning district to increase office uses from the currently allowed floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.6 to 1.0
and increase commercial recreation facilities from the currently allowed FAR of 0.5 to 1.0. Furthermore,
amendments to the design guidelines of the Bayfront Specific Plan for the Anza Point subarea would be
needed to allow for changes to required front and internal setbacks and the heights of buildings and to
reflect the proposed roadway realignment through the Project Site. Adoption of these amendments
would make the Previously Proposed Project consistent with the Bayfront Specific Plan, and impacts
would be less than significant.
2 The City's Housing Element has been updated since the completion of the EIR. However, since the Project does
not include housing, it is not necessary to discuss consistency with the Housing Element.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 5 1CF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
The buildings proposed for development under the Previously Proposed Project would be inconsistent
with the FAR, height, and setbacks3 permitted under the City of Burlingame Municipal Code for APN
zoning regulations. To provide adequate parking onsite, parking regulations for stall dimensions would
need to be amended. The Project Sponsor would request amendments to the City Zoning Code regarding
floor area, height, setbacks, and parking so that the Previously Proposed Project would be consistent
with the zoning code.
Impacts of Revised Project. The Revised Project would include the same uses as the Previously
Proposed Project. As such, the conclusions regarding division of an established community and
consistency with Bayfront Specific Plan policies for the Previously Proposed Project would apply to the
Revised Project. As with the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would be generally
consistent with the City General Plan, the Bayfront Specific Plan, BCDC Public Access Design Guidelines,
the ABAG Bay Trail Plan and Design Guidelines, the ALUP, the Coyote Point Recreation Area Master Plan,
and the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
When the Previously Proposed Project was approved in June 2012, the majority of land use
entitlements, zoning amendments, and amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan were approved.
Although a final parcel map would still be required, the Revised Project would be consistent with the
Bayfront Specific Plan land use designations and zoning regulations regarding FAR, setbacks, building
heights, and parking. In addition, the entire Project Site is now within APN zoning, which now allows
incidental food establishments and retail services in a business campus. Therefore, the Revised
Project, similar to the Previously Proposed Project, would result in less -than -significant land use
impacts. The Revised Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the certified
Final EIR.
Biological Resources
Summary of Previously Proposed Project. The Project Site is located in an urbanized area, on a vacant
lot along the San Francisco Bay (Bay) shoreline and near the outlet of Sanchez Lagoon, both of which
offer habitat for plant species, migrating birds, and other wildlife. The vegetation communities of the
Project Site are ruderal (weedy) or ornamental (remnant landscaping around the site perimeter). The
bordering shorelines adjacent to the Project Site are artificial concrete and riprap. No sensitive natural
communities occur within the Project Site. In combination with the urban history of the Project Site,
these degraded or developed communities do not provide suitable habitat for special -status plant or
animal species that might otherwise occur in suitable habitat of the Project Site vicinity. The Project Site
does not contain any trees that are protected under any tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Additionally, the Project Site does not provide ample habitat for trees that would be defined as protected
trees by the City. As such, the Previously Proposed Project was found to have a less -than -significant
impact on the protection of biological resources.
The Project Site was created using Bay fill and then developed as a drive-in movie theater, neither of
which (i.e., site development or theater) is considered natural in origin. Consequently, there were no
effects on sensitive natural communities. A series of channels and depressions that retain surface water
for extended periods are located in the eastern and southern portion of the Project Site. These features
support a variety of ruderal wetland plant species and, therefore, could be subject to the Clean Water
3 The Previously Proposed Project would require amendments to only the front setbacks, shoreline setbacks,
setbacks from the Project Site for below -grade construction, and parking setbacks. The other setbacks (side, rear,
and distance between buildings) are consistent with the existing zoning code, and therefore, no amendments are
required.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3_6 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Act (CWA). In addition, fill activity associated with construction grading could require a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
MITIGATION MEASURES. As presented in the certified Final EIR, Mitigation Measures BR-2.1 and
BR-2.2, Conduct a Wetland Delineation and Obtain Applicable Permits and Certifications, were applied
to the Previously Proposed Project to account for its impact on any potential wetlands and other
waters of the United States. These mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than
significant with mitigation.
The Previously Proposed Project would require tree and shrub removal, which could include potential
nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds. This could result in "take" associated with the direct
mortality of adult or young birds, nest destruction, or disturbance of nesting native bird species
(including migratory birds and other special -status species), resulting in nest abandonment and/or the
loss of reproductive effort. Bird species are protected by both state (California Fish and Game Code
Sections 3503 and 3513) and federal (Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918) laws.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BR-3.1 and BR-3.2, Bird Nest Pre -Construction Survey
and Bird Nest Buffer Zone, as presented in the certified Final EIR, were applied to the Previously
Proposed Project to reduce its impact on nesting migratory birds to less than significant with
mitigation.
Impacts of Revised Project. An updated California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) query was
submitted for the Revised Project. Compared with the 2011 CNDDB query for the Previously Proposed
Project, the 2016 CNDDB query for the Project Site included 13 additional species. One of the 13 new
species, marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), is federally threatened and state endangered.
Marbled murrelet nests in old -growth coniferous forests, in trees greater than 200 years old. This
habitat is not present at the Project Site. Other new species include Townsend's big -eared bat
(Corynorhinus townsendii), a state candidate threatened species, and longfin smelt (Spirinchus
thaleichthys), a federal candidate and state threatened species. These species are not expected to be
present at the Project Site. There are no caves or human -made structures (e.g., old mine workings or
buildings) for Townsend's big -eared bat to occupy for roosting, and the Project Site does not include
aquatic habitat that could support longfin smelt. One species that was not federally or state listed at the
time of the 2011 CNDDB query has become listed; Franciscan manzanita (Arcotostaphylos franciscana)
was designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as federally endangered on October 5, 2012.
However, Franciscan manzanita is known only from a single individual in the San Francisco Presidio and
not expected to be present at the Project Site 4
Because of the lack of native vegetation communities and the urban nature of the site's former uses, it is
not expected that any of the known special -status species from the region would occur on the Project
Site. Similar to the site for the Previously Proposed Project, the eastern and southern portions of the
Project Site contain vegetated channels and depressions that support a variety of ruderal wetland plant
species. Therefore, if construction were to occur along the eastern and western edges of the property,
for elevations below 5.55 feet NGVD, the Revised Project would be subject to the CWA.5 The loss of
vegetated features as a result of the Revised Project would be a potentially significant impact. In
4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. California Natural Diversity Database - Selected Elements by
Scientific Name. April 1, 2016.
5 Hicks, Jane M. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. December 6, 2012—letter to Michael Josselyn, WRA Environmental
Consultants.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-7 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
addition, the Revised Project would remove the same number of trees and shrubs from the Project Site
as the Previously Proposed Project, resulting in potentially significant impacts on nesting migratory
birds.
MITIGATION MEASURES. As presented in the certified Final EIR, Mitigation Measures BR-2.1 and
BR-2.2, Conduct a Wetland Delineation and Obtain Applicable Permits and Certifications, would be
applied to the Revised Project to account for its impact on any potential wetlands and other waters
of the United States within the Project Site. In addition, Mitigation Measures BR-3.1 and BR-3.2, Bird
Nest Pre -Construction Survey and Bird Nest Buffer Zone, as presented in the certified Final EIR, would
be applied to the Revised Project to reduce its impact on nesting migratory birds. As such, the
impacts on biological resources due to development of the Revised Project would be less than
significant with mitigation. The Revised Project would not result in any impacts beyond those
identified in the certified Final EIR.
Cultural Resources
Summary of Previously Proposed Project. There are no existing structures on the Project Site. As
such, the Previously Proposed Project would not require the demolition and disposal of existing
buildings. In addition, there are no historic resources on or within 0.25 mile of the Project Site.
Therefore, the Previously Proposed Project would result in no impact on historic resources. The Project
Site is located on fill; therefore, the Project Site is a highly artificial environment that has very low
archeological sensitivity. The cultural resources records search conducted for the Previously Proposed
Project, as well as Native American correspondence, revealed no recorded Native American or historic -
period archaeological sites within the Project Site. Nevertheless, because the Previously Proposed
Project would require soil -disturbing activities during construction, impacts related to undiscovered
archeological and paleontological resources and human remains could occur. If encountered during
construction, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains could be
damaged or destroyed, resulting in potentially significant impacts.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures E-1, E-2, and E-3, Undiscovered Cultural Resources,
Unique Paleontological/Geological Features, and Human Remains, as presented in the Initial Study,
would reduce impacts on archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains,
respectively, to less than significant with mitigation.
Impacts of Revised Project. As with the Previously Proposed Project, there are no existing structures
on the Project Site. Therefore, the Revised Project would not require the demolition or disposal of
existing buildings at the Project Site. The Revised Project would involve the same maximum depth of
excavation as the Previously Proposed Project. However, the Revised Project would require slightly
more excavation for the increased basement area. As such, there is a minor increase in the likelihood of
unearthing archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains during construction
of the Revised Project. Construction activities could damage these resources, resulting in potentially
significant impacts.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Although the Revised Project would require additional excavation, the
mitigation measures, as presented in the Initial Study (Mitigation Measures E-1, E-2, and E-3), would
reduce the impacts on archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains. The
Revised Project would not result in additional impacts beyond those identified in the Initial Study,
and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 $ ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Summary of Previously Proposed Project. Construction of the Previously Proposed Project would
require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit,
development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), appropriate best
management practices (BMPs), and other controls to minimize sediment and pollutants in construction
site stormwater runoff. These controls, along with City Municipal Code sections pertaining to
construction and stormwater management, would ensure that the Previously Proposed Project would
reduce erosion and sediment transport during construction to the extent required by existing
regulations, would not contribute additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise cause water quality
degradation. As a result, the Previously Proposed Project's construction -related water quality impacts
would be less than significant.
During operation, all stormwater runoff from the Previously Proposed Project would be routed through
new and existing onsite storm drainage systems to existing offsite storm drains/channels. Stormwater is
not conveyed to the City's piped drainage system but, rather, conveyed by a pump to Sanchez Channel,
which flows into the Bay. By including appropriate source controls, site designs, BMPs, and stormwater
treatment measures, the Previously Proposed Project would be in compliance with the standards and
water quality protection measures imposed under the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Furthermore,
the review and permitting processes would ensure that the Previously Proposed Project would not
violate NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), permits, or water
quality standards. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. The Previously Proposed Project
would be in compliance with the MRP and San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SMCWPPP), Provision C.3, Stormwater Technical Guidance, which includes post -construction
stormwater controls to help reduce long-term impacts on stormwater quality. BMPs identified for the
Previously Proposed Project include stormwater retention and treatment areas. Therefore, operation of
the Previously Proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff that would be an additional
source of water quality degradation or result in substantial erosion or sedimentation onsite or offsite.
The impact would be less than significant.
Approximately 89 percent of the Project Site is currently covered with impervious surfaces. The
Previously Proposed Project would reduce impervious surfaces to 78 percent of the Project Site (an 11
percent reduction), reducing stormwater peak -flow runoff and the demand on the stormwater pump
station. The roadway storm drain system would remain a City storm drain system and be realigned to
follow the realigned Airport Boulevard, draining into Sanchez Channel through existing outfalls. The
existing outfall from the private storm drain pump may be maintained to drain portions of the open
space and podium areas. In addition, a reduction in peak flows, as well as required BMPs, is included in
the design of the Previously Proposed Project, ensuring that capacity would not be exceeded and no
additional sources of polluted runoff would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. The City's sole
source of potable water is the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Regional Water
System, which obtains its water supply predominately from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. Excavation depth
during construction of the Previously Proposed Project would vary from 0 to 7.5 feet from the finished
floor of the basement garage, with the maximum excavation at an elevation of 5.5 feet below sea level.
Although some dewatering of subgrade features is anticipated during construction, dewatering would
be temporary and should not have a substantial adverse effect on surface water/groundwater
interactions. Therefore, the Previously Proposed Project would have a less -than -significant impact on
groundwater supplies.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-9 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Sanchez Channel is the only 100-year flood hazard zone in the vicinity of the Project Site. A 100-foot
setback between Sanchez Channel and the developed portions of the Previously Proposed Project, as
well as Bay Trail and open space improvements, would be created, but permanent structures would not
modify Sanchez Channel or be placed in the flood hazard zone of Sanchez Channel. The floodway and
floodplain would not be affected, resulting in no impact. The majority of the Project Site is located within
Zone X (shaded), between the 100- and 500-year flood zones. These areas are of moderate flood hazard
and not considered to be within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
Sea -level rise could increase the frequency of flood events, reduce stormflow conveyance capacities, and
create more stress on the shoreline and flood protection features. The Project Site is currently protected
from flooding by a shoreline barrier. Because the site elevation and finished floors at the Project Site
would be above the expected 100-year peak tide elevation, substantial flood risks for people and
aboveground structures are not expected. However, underground structures could be subject to flooding
from an increased volume of water in the shallow groundwater table, the storm drain system may be
subject to backwater effects and reduced conveyance capacity, and structures and embankments may
not be designed to protect against higher tides adequately. In addition, when the Project Site was filled,
the shoreline barriers were not properly engineered to prevent erosion. Maximum wave heights during
high tides and 100-year tides have the potential to flood the Project Site. People and structures could be
exposed to increased risk from flooding and erosion hazards through the development of new buildings,
an inadequate storm drain system, and the eroded perimeter barriers, which were not designed to
withstand the higher dynamic forces associated with higher tides. These would be potentially
significant impacts.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Although the Previously Proposed Project could result in impacts related
to sea -level rise and tidal and wave -action flooding, the mitigation measures presented in the
certified Final EIR (Mitigation Measures HY-7.1, HY-7.2, HY-7.3, and HY-7.4) would reduce these
impacts. The Previously Proposed Project would not result in additional impacts beyond those
identified in the certified Final EIR, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impacts of Revised Project. As with the Previously Proposed Project, compliance with applicable
federal, state, and local regulations during construction and operation of the Revised Project would
ensure that the Revised Project would not violate water quality standards, permits, or WDRs. A SWPPP
would be developed and implemented, and BMPs would minimize sediment and pollutants in
construction site stormwater runoff. In addition, the Revised Project would comply with the NPDES
Construction General Permit, City Municipal Code pertaining to construction and stormwater
management, and other applicable regulations and controls, ensuring that the Revised Project would
reduce erosion and sediment transport that would otherwise cause water quality degradation. As such,
impacts related to water quality standards, WDRs, water quality degradation, erosion, sedimentation,
and the City's drainage system would be less than significant. The Revised Project would include a
basement garage; however, similar to the Previously Proposed Project, the only 100-year flood hazard
zone in the vicinity of the Project Site is confined to Sanchez Channel. The Revised Project would not
place a structure within a SFHA, resulting in no impact.
The Revised Project would place structures on the Project Site that would be similar in size to those
proposed under the Previously Proposed Project. However, surface parking under the Revised Project
would total 88,500 gross square feet (gsf) compared with 114,000 gsf under the Previously Proposed
Project, resulting in a 22 percent reduction in asphalt surface parking and creating more open green
space. After completion of the Revised Project, impervious surfaces would cover approximately 70
percent of the Project Site, which is less than the Previously Proposed Project. Impervious areas include
Burlingame Point Project 3 10 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
roadways, parking areas, and rooftops. The Revised Project would include a stormwater retention zone
to store and treat stormwater runoff from sidewalks and other areas. The same urban pollutants that
would be generated under the Previously Proposed Project would be generated in stormwater runoff
under the Revised Project. The City is responsible for enforcing and monitoring compliance with the
SMCWPPP and overseeing the use of BMPs, as incorporated into the design of the Revised Project.
Operations at the Project Site would be in compliance with applicable permits. To ensure that the
Revised Project would not contribute additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise degrade surface
water quality, BMPs would be implemented to reduce stormwater pollutants and runoff.
Groundwater at the Project Site is shallow, and excavation during construction of subgrade features
would most likely reach groundwater, requiring some dewatering. However, this would be a temporary
impact because groundwater is not a source of supply or recharge, and dewatering would not have a
significant impact on surface water/groundwater interactions. This would not adversely affect
groundwater supplies because Burlingame's sole source of potable water is the SFPUC Regional Water
System, which obtains approximately 85 percent of its water supply from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir.
Therefore, there would be less -than -significant impacts related to water quality degradation, erosion,
sedimentation, and groundwater recharge and supply. However, the Revised Project would expose
approximately the same number of persons to the risk of flooding from sea -level rise as the Previously
Proposed Project. As such, impacts related to sea -level rise and flooding would be potentially significant.6
MITIGATION MEASURES. Although the Revised Project could result in impacts related to sea -level
rise and tidal and wave -action flooding, the mitigation measures presented in the certified Final EIR
(Mitigation Measures HY-7.1, HY-7.2, HY-7.3, and HY-7.4) would reduce the impacts. The Previously
Proposed Project would not result in additional impacts beyond those identified in the Initial Study,
and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Geology and Soils
Summary of Previously Proposed Project. The Project Site is not in a designated Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone, and thus, the Previously Proposed Project would not be expected to expose
people to significant impacts caused by the rupture of a known fault. The Project Site would be served
by sewer mains used for wastewater disposal. Because the Project Site is in a seismically active region,
the potential for seismically related ground failure exists. In addition, new development at the Project
Site would expose approximately 2,475 new workers to ground shaking. Development under the
Previously Proposed Project would be required to comply with the construction standards and seismic
design criteria contained in the California Building Code (CBC), as adopted by the City. A geotechnical
investigation was conducted at the Project Site, providing the analysis and recommendations required
by the City Building Code prior to the building permit being issued. Compliance with the City Building
Code would reduce potential liquefaction hazards to a less -than -significant level. The Project Site is
relatively flat, with no steep or unstable adjacent slopes. In addition, grading activities would comply
6 The California Supreme Court recently concluded in the California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (CBIA v. BAAQMD) case that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
"generally does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will affect a project's future
users or residents." Therefore, given the conclusions of the CBIA v. BAAQMD case, the exposure of Project users to
flooding and sea -level rise would not be considered an impact under CEQA. Although the mitigation measure for
the Previously Proposed Project may no longer be required, the Revised Project will still adhere to the mitigation
measures related to sea -level rise and tidal/wave-action flooding to maintain consistency with the certified
Final EIR.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-11 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
with the CBC. Therefore, the Previously Proposed Project would have no impact related to landslide
hazards. To prevent soil erosion, the Previously Proposed Project would implement drainage and
erosion control features during construction, and approved landscape and irrigation plans would be
implemented after construction. The Previously Proposed Project would conform to City grading
requirements, which include obtaining a grading permit and plot plans drawn by a licensed civil
engineer, architect, or land surveyor that show the location and contours of existing and proposed
structures, streets, driveways, and easements. If the grading permit is part of the building permit
application, then the plot plans will show the proposed building elevations above and below grade and
the proposed disposition of surface drainage on the site.? Furthermore, the Previously Proposed Project
would conform to the San Mateo County Stormwater Management Plan to further prevent substantial
soil erosion. The Previously Proposed Project would comply with the CBC during excavation activities
and the Regional Water Quality Control Board or the local sanitation district during potential
dewatering activities. Compliance during excavation and potential dewatering activities would reduce
impacts associated with soil and slope instability, subsidence, or expansive, liquefiable, or collapsible
soils. In addition, the Previously Proposed Project would adhere to CBC requirements regarding soils
and/or geologic materials that support building foundations. Therefore, the Previously Proposed Project
would result in less -than -significant impacts related to geology and soils.
Impacts of Revised Project. With respect to rupture of a known earthquake fault, exposure of people to
seismically related ground shaking and ground failure, soil hazards, and soil erosion, the Revised Project
would result in the same less -than -significant impacts as the Previously Proposed Project. Adherence to
the City Building Code would ensure the maximum practicable protection from soil failures. In addition,
compliance with City requirements and the CBC would ensure that soil erosion impacts resulting from
Revised Project construction would be minimized. As such, no additional impacts related to geology and
soils, beyond those identified in the Initial Study, would occur, resulting in less -than -significant impacts.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Summary of Previously Proposed Project. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was
performed by Treadwell & Rollo, which determined that no sensitive receptors exist within a 0.25-mile
radius of the Project Site. Additionally, there are no National Priority List sites, oil and gas pipelines,
active landfill sites, or Department of Defense sites within a 1-mile radius of the Project Site. An
Environmental Data Resources (EDR) database search was conducted to identify recognized hazardous
materials conditions related to current and past land uses. Further review of hazardous materials files at
the Burlingame Fire Department and the San Mateo County Department of Health Services did not
recover any listings for the Project Site.
The Previously Proposed Project would not involve the demolition of existing buildings, thereby
eliminating the potential to expose construction workers or the public to hazardous building materials
such as asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, lead, and mercury. However, the Previously Proposed
Project would require construction activities that could result in spills or leaks of hazardous materials.
As such, worker exposure during building construction could occur. Therefore, the Project Sponsor
would be required to manage all hazardous materials pursuant to regulations of the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department and the Burlingame Fire Department, reducing potential impacts to a
less -than -significant level.
7 City of Burlingame. Burlingame Municipal Code. Title 18, Chapter 18.20.030 Requirements for grading permits.
Available: http://gcode.us/codes/burlingame/?view=desktop&topic=25-25_60-25_60_010. Accessed: April 21,
2016.
Burlingame Point Project 3 12 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
The Previously Proposed Project would develop office uses or life science uses, either of which could
result in hazardous material releases from landscaping maintenance, routine use of minor quantities of
chemicals, or the use and storage of various laboratory chemicals and hazardous materials. However,
hazardous materials releases during operation of the Previously Proposed Project would be minor, and
impacts on the public or the environment from the transport, use, handling, and/or accidental release of
hazardous materials would be less than significant. because the Project Site is not located within 0.25
mile of an existing or proposed school, the Previously Proposed Project would have no impact related to
the emission or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within 0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school.
The surrounding land uses include various office and commercial properties as well as open space and
recreational uses at Coyote Point Recreation Area. The Bay separates the Project Site from Coyote
Point Recreation Area quasi-wildlands, thereby eliminating the risk for wildland fires. The Project Site
is located approximately 2 miles southeast of San Francisco International Airport but is not in
proximity to a private airstrip. The San Mateo County Comprehensive ALUP sets a height restriction
for the Project Site of 300 feet above mean sea level (msl). Taking the Project Site's elevation into
consideration, the tallest building at the Project Site would be approximately 144 feet above the
proposed Airport Boulevard realignment and 158 feet above msl, thereby complying with the height
restrictions set forth by the ALUP. The City has not adopted an Emergency Response or Emergency
Evacuation Plan. El Camino Real, located approximately 2.5 miles south of the Project Site, could serve
as an emergency evacuation route. Given the distance between the Project Site and El Camino Real,
the Previously Proposed Project would not encroach on E1 Camino Real, resulting in a less -than -
significant impact on emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, the Previously Proposed
Project would result in a less -than -significant impact with regard to hazards and hazardous
materials.
Impacts of Revised Project. Similar to the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would not
involve the demolition of existing buildings, and the Project Sponsor would be required to manage all
hazardous materials, pursuant to regulations of the San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department and the Burlingame Fire Department. In addition, the Revised Project would develop office
and life science uses, which could result in hazardous materials releases during operation of the Revised
Project. The Revised Project could result in routine use of minor quantities of chemicals (e.g., paints,
cleaning solvents, ammonia) that are associated with normal office uses. Through consumer compliance
with label warnings and storage recommendations from individual manufacturers, these hazardous
materials would not pose any greater risk to the public or the environment. In addition, landscape
maintenance would require minor quantities of pesticides and herbicides, and automobiles would
occasionally leak limited quantities of petroleum hydrocarbons or oil and grease in the parking lot area.
However, these releases would be minor, and impacts on the public or the environment from the
transport, use, handling, and/or accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Similar to the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would have less -than -significant impacts
related to schools, wildland fires, ALUP height restrictions, and emergency evacuation routes. Therefore,
the Revised Project would result in a less -than -significant impact with regard to hazards and
hazardous materials. The Revised Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the
Initial Study.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-13 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Population and Housing
Summary of Previously Proposed Project. The Project Site is currently vacant. Therefore,
construction of the Previously Proposed Project would not displace housing or people, which would
require the construction of housing elsewhere. The Previously Proposed Project would not include
development of new housing units and, therefore, would not directly increase the residential
population within the region. However, there would be an indirect population increase associated
with new employment during construction and operation. During construction, there would be a
temporary increase in construction employment. However, this temporary construction employment
would most likely be met within the existing and future labor market in the City and in San Mateo
County.
Assuming the Previously Proposed Project would develop office uses only,$ up to 2,475 net new workers
would be employed at the Project Site. As such, the Previously Proposed Project would increase the
daytime population at the Project Site. Under a conservative scenario, with all 2,475 new employees
coming from outside Burlingame, the Previously Proposed Project would create additional demand for
approximately 1,115 housing units (at the current ratio of 2.22 persons per household), which could
result in 1,115 additional households in the city. However, this is assuming a conservative scenario; it is
unlikely that all the new employees would come from outside the city or that all would seek housing
within the city. The Previously Proposed Project would result in less -than -significant impacts on
population and housing growth.
Impacts of Revised Project. Although the distribution of uses on the Project Site has changed slightly
with the Revised Project, there would be no additional impacts beyond those identified in the certified
Final EIR, and the population and housing conclusions in the certified Final EIR would still apply. The
Revised Project would develop three buildings with office uses; the remaining building would be
developed with life science uses. However, for purposes of the analysis, it is conservatively assumed that
all buildings would be developed with office uses (as assumed for the Previously Proposed Project).
Under the Revised Project, office, office conference space, and food service uses would increase
compared with the Previously Proposed Project, while retail and amenities uses (i.e., childcare and
fitness center) would decrease. Regardless, the Revised Project would generate approximately
2,475 employees, which is the same number of employees that would be generated by the Previously
Proposed Project. Therefore, the Revised Project would result in the same number of new households
within the region and represent the same percentage of growth in projected housing demand. As
presented in the certified Final EIR, the person -per -household (pph) ratio used for the city was 2.22.
Although the city's current ratio has increased to 2.3 pph,9 the Revised Project would result in a
population increase similar to that of the Previously Proposed Project and would not induce substantial
population growth in the city or region. As such, the Revised Project would not induce substantial
population growth indirectly through job growth and would not have direct impacts on the physical
environment, resulting in a less -than -significant impact. The Revised Project would not result in any
impacts beyond those identified in the certified Final EIR.
8 The most conservative assumption, as compared to life science uses.
9 City of Burlingame. 2015.2015-2023 Housing Element. Adopted January 5. Available:
https://www.burlingame.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=11658. Accessed: January 27, 2016.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 14 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Public Services
Summary of Previously Proposed Project. The Previously Proposed Project would not add new
residents to the Project Site directly. However, the Previously Proposed Project would require an
increased level of police and fire services because of increased employment and onsite activity. With
more onsite activity, there could be more incidents that would require police and fire response.
However, the increased level of police and fire services would not be large enough to trigger the need for
construction of new or expanded facilities, which could adversely affect the physical environment or
affect human health and safety. The Previously Proposed Project would realign Airport Boulevard to
bisect the Project Site, thereby changing traffic patterns to account for bicyclists and pedestrians. As
such, emergency access to the Project Site could be affected. However, it is unlikely that the increase in
the daytime population at the Project Site would affect police and fire response times to the extent that
they would fall below existing standards.
Because the Previously Proposed Project would not involve the construction of new residential units in
the city, it would not directly generate students. Nonetheless, the Previously Proposed Project would
indirectly generate student demand from the induced housing resulting from increased employment.
Although the Previously Proposed Project would accommodate office uses, it most likely would not
induce a substantial number of new residents to the city, including children who would attend schools
administered by the Burlingame School District (BSD) or San Mateo Union High School District
(SMUHSD). As such, the Project would not place an additional burden on either BSD or SMUHSD.
The Previously Proposed Project would add employees to the Project Site who could use City libraries.
However, there are no library services in the Bayfront Specific Plan area; therefore, employees would
not be expected to use a City library before or after work or during lunch breaks. In addition, no new
residential uses are proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, because the Previously Proposed Project
would not trigger the need for the construction of new fire, police, school, or library facilities, the
impacts would be less than significant.
Impacts of Revised Project. The Revised Project would generate the same number of employees as the
Previously Proposed Project (approximately 2,475). As such, the Revised Project would demand the
same amount of public services as the Previously Proposed Project. The Revised Project would include
the same number of parking stalls, and traffic conditions would not change. Local roadways would not
be further affected, and police and fire response times would be the same as those analyzed for the
Previously Proposed Project. There would be no additional fire, police, school, or library impacts beyond
those identified in the Initial Study.
Similar to the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would realign Airport Boulevard to
bisect the Project Site. The Revised Project would include minor changes to existing emergency access
routes, but these changes would have a less -than -significant impact. Therefore, impacts on fire services,
police services, schools, and libraries would be less than significant under the Revised Project, similar
to the Previously Proposed Project.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-15 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Summary of Previously Proposed Project. The City uses approximately 75.3 percent of its Individual
Supply Guarantee (ISG). The Previously Proposed Project would require about 14 percent10 of the City's
potable water. During normal years, the City would have a sufficient water supply to serve the
Previously Proposed Project between 2011 and 2035. However, SFPUC would be unable to meet the
Previously Proposed Project's demand under specific dry -year conditions. The City's 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP)11 would ensure that supply curtailments and subsequent stages of demand
reductions would balance demand (including that of the Previously Proposed Project) against curtailed
supplies. Additionally, compliance with Senate Bill x7-712 and active planning efforts by the Bay Area
Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) would reduce water demand. The Previously
Proposed Project's water supply design specifications would comply with the City's standards regarding
requirements for the design and operation of water distribution facilities. Final approvals from the City
would be necessary prior to delivery of water to the Project Site.
Construction of the Previously Proposed Project would involve the removal of existing impervious
surface cover (e.g. asphalt and concrete) and require excavation, consisting of approximately
75,000 cubic yards of mass excavated material. About 40,000 cubic yards of the excavated material
would be exported offsite; the remaining excavated material would be used as backfill or grading
material in landscaped areas within the Project Site. The Previously Proposed Project would be subject
to the City's construction and demolition waste recycling requirement; such activities would be required
to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations governing solid waste. Therefore,
preparation of the undeveloped site and construction of the project would have less -than -significant
impacts on landfills.
The City's Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) operates below capacity under dry -weather
conditions. The Previously Proposed Project's increase to existing wastewater volumes would be slight.
Although the WWTP would be able to accommodate the projected wastewater volume generated by the
Previously Proposed Project, the increased peak wet -weather flow (PWWF) would require mitigation to
increase capacity and reduce potential impacts on the pump station. It is anticipated that only the
pumps and controller would need to be upgraded to increase capacity for PWWF; no improvements
would need to be made to the pump station itself. Basins 2 and 6, which are within the City's jurisdiction,
would be rehabilitated in conjunction with buildout of the Previously Proposed Project to balance the
increased flows that would be entering the WWTP. Each basin's mains, manholes, and lower laterals
would be rehabilitated, resulting in reduced PWWF to the WWTP at Basins 2 and 6. Therefore, the
Previously Proposed Project would require expansion and rehabilitation of existing wastewater
infrastructure. This would result in a potentially significant impact on the City's wastewater system.
10 Impacts on utilities and service systems were evaluated using the life sciences building scenario, which generally
uses more utilities than office uses, to ensure a conservative analysis.
11 The City is in the process of updating the UWMP. A public review draft of the 2015 UWMP for the City was
released in May 2016. Adoption of the 2015 UWMP is pending.
12 This bill, enacted in November 2009, requires all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency in two primary
sectors, Urban Water Conservation and Agricultural Water Conservation. The bill requires, among other things,
that the Department of Water Resources, in consultation with other state agencies, develop a single standardized
water use reporting form, which would be used by both urban and agricultural water agencies.
Burlingame Point Project 3-16 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure UT-3.1 (Upgrade Pump Capacity at the Existing 399
Rollins Road Pump Station and Reduce Inflow and Infiltration within the Wastewater System) would
reduce the Previously Proposed Project's potentially significant impact on the City's wastewater
conveyance and treatment system to less than significant with mitigation.
Impacts of Revised Project. Similar to the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would
increase building density at the currently undeveloped Project Site. Construction of the Revised Project
would consist of approximately 77,250 cubic yards of mass excavated material. During construction,
approximately 32,400 cubic yards of soil would be exported offsite, which is slightly less excavation
waste compared with the Previously Proposed Project. Therefore, impacts on landfills would still be less
than significant. For the purposes of the utilities analysis for the Previously Proposed Project, it was
assumed that the Project Site would be developed with all life sciences uses, ensuring a conservative
analysis. However, the Revised Project would most likely develop three buildings for office uses and one
building for life sciences uses. Office uses would result in less water demand than life science uses;
therefore, it is anticipated that the Revised Project's impact on water and wastewater infrastructure
would be less than that of the Previously Proposed Project. Regardless, the Revised Project's impact is
considered to be potentially significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Although the Revised Project would develop fewer life sciences buildings,
Mitigation Measure UT-3.1 would reduce the Revised Project's potentially significant impact on the
City's wastewater conveyance and treatment system to less than significant with mitigation. The
Revised Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the certified Final EIR.
Agricultural, Forestry, and Mineral Resources
Based on knowledge of the Project Site and its surrounding areas, a determination was made in the
Initial Study for the Previously Proposed Project that there would be no project -related impacts on
agricultural, forestry, or mineral resources because none are present in the vicinity. The same
conclusion of no impact applies to the Revised Project.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-17 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
3.3 Topics Requiring Additional Analysis
Visual Quality
Summary of Previously Proposed Project
VQ-1: Alteration of Scenic Vistas. The Previously Proposed Project would increase massing, height,
and bulk considerably compared with existing conditions. Existing views from the Coyote Point
Recreation Area/San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) include broad views of the San Francisco Bay (Bay)
and relatively unobstructed views of the higher portions of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Given the
relatively natural setting and the high quality of the views from this location, and that the area is open to
the public, views of the Bay, the San Francisco skyline, the East Bay Hills, and the Santa Cruz Mountains
from this vantage point are considered scenic vistas. Although the Project Site is visible from
surrounding locations, none of these areas, other than Coyote Point Recreation Area, are considered
scenic vistas because of their location and limited views of significant landscape features.
As shown in Figure 13, Buildings 131 and B2 and the amenities center would be visible from the Coyote
Point Recreation Area; the taller buildings would partially obscure the remaining view of the ridgeline of
the Santa Cruz Mountains. In addition, Building B3 and the parking structure would be partially visible
from the Coyote Point Recreation Area. As such, the four office/life science buildings and the multi -level
parking structure at the Project Site would interrupt existing views of the Coyote Point Recreation Area.
However, this increased development would represent a small portion of the overall vista. Existing
development located west of the Project Site is similar in size and scale to the proposed buildings.
Therefore, the ridgeline of the Santa Cruz Mountains would be unobstructed, even with development of
the Previously Proposed Project.
Although ridgeline views would be blocked by the office/life science buildings from this location, other
vantage points in the Coyote Point Recreation Area, such as the overlook on the bluff trail to the east,
would have slightly different view corridors, with less of the view blocked by development. In addition,
it is important to note that the views of the Project Site change as the viewer adjusts position. As the
viewer approaches the Project Site along the Bay Trail, the development would appear large and would
block different background views. However, the proposed buildings would appear smaller against the
backdrop of the hills as the viewer moves away from the Project Site. From the tree -covered point of
Coyote Point, the ridgeline of the Santa Cruz Mountains would be unobstructed, even with development
of the Previously Proposed Project. As such, although the proposed height and massing at the Project
Site would increase, this would represent an insignificant part of the overall view available from this
location. The Previously Proposed Project would have a less -than -significant impact on scenic vistas
from the Coyote Point Recreation Area.
VQ-2: Damage to Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway. The Project Site is not located
adjacent to, or in view of, a designated state scenic highway or corridor. The closest designated scenic
highway is Interstate 280 (I-280), which is more than 3 miles west of the Project Site. No portion of the
Project Site can be seen from I-280. Therefore, there would be no impact related to scenic resources
adjacent to, or in view of, a state scenic highway.
VQ-3: Degradation of Existing Visual Character or Quality. The Project Site currently consists of a
vacant lot, with cracked paved surfaces, dirt mounds, and ruderal weeds and shrubs. As such, the Project
Site does not currently represent a visually significant area. In addition, the vacant parcel is not
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 18 ICF 00014.16
Sources: Atkins, 2011 and Genlser, 2016.
Figure 13
Visual Simulations — Coyote Point Recreation Area
Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
consistent with its surroundings and does not provide unity between the natural setting of the Bay to
the east, the light -industrial buildings to the south, or the office development to the west. The Previously
Proposed Project would replace the vacant site with new buildings, enhanced landscaping, and
bicycle/pedestrian amenities. The Previously Proposed Project would develop buildings ranging from
48.5 to 144 feet in height, which would substantially increase building mass and alter the visual
character of the Anza Point subarea. In addition, this change in visual character would result in a more
cohesive visual pattern, which is encouraged by the City of Burlingame (City) through the policies and
design guidelines contained in the Bayfront Specific Plan. Development under the Previously Proposed
Project would provide increased unity with the surroundings by creating contiguous landscape areas
and buildings that would reflect a similar architectural design. The buildings would provide design
continuity with the office complex to the west, while the open spaces, vegetation, and revitalized Bay
Trails would provide visual connections to the Bay.
As shown in Figure 14, the northbound Peninsula Avenue/US 101 onramp includes unobstructed views
of the Project Site, with San Bruno Mountain visible in the background. All the Previously Proposed
Project buildings would be visible to varying degrees from the onramp. However, the proposed
landscaping, which would be visible along the eastern perimeter, would soften the Previously Proposed
Project's appearance and reduce its visual contrast with the surrounding landscape. Figure 15 depicts
the Project Site from southbound US 101. Existing views of the Project Site from this location are highly
channelized, and background views of the East Bay Hills are visible only on clear days. The Previously
Proposed Project would add height, mass, and bulk to the view from this location and become the
dominant visual feature. However, motorists on northbound and southbound US 101 have only fleeting
views of the Project Site because of the speeds that are permitted and the fact that users of US 101
typically direct their attention to the freeway ahead rather than views from the freeway. Therefore, the
views of the Project Site from US 101 do not constitute sensitive views, and motorists on US 101 are not
considered sensitive viewers. Furthermore, direct views of the Project Site are partially blocked by other
freeway lanes, other motorists, freeway barriers, and overhead utility lines.
The Previously Proposed Project would comply with the City's design review process and landscaping
standards, ensuring that future development would be visually compatible with the character of the
surrounding area. Therefore, the Previously Proposed Project would not substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site or the area, and the impact would be less than significant.
VQ-4: New Sources of Light and Glare. There is currently no lighting at the Project Site. The Project
Site is highly visible from US 101, and lights from vehicles and exterior lighting used at buildings could
be nuisance or distraction for motorists. In addition, the Previously Proposed Project would include
pedestrian lighting, bollard lighting along the Bay Trail, and in -ground drive -over lights along the vehicle
drop-off areas. However, lighting would be designed to meet the requirements of Municipal Code
Section 18.16.030 to prevent light spillage offsite. Under the Previously Proposed Project, buildings
would include glass -fiber reinforced concrete panels, natural stone veneers, prefinished metal panels,
and high-performance tinted glazing; reflective or dark tinted glass would not be used. The proposed
buildings would also include aluminum -blade sunshades, prefinished metal panels, aluminum
storefronts, pre -finished metal canopies with panel joints, and pre -finished metal -clad column covers.
These metallic surfaces create less light reflection than glazed surfaces. Therefore, the Previously
Proposed Project would result in a less -than -significant impact related to light and glare.
VQ-5: Cumulative Visual Impacts. The Previously Proposed Project, and other projects in the area,
could be visible from scenic viewpoints. However, because of the flat topography, distance, intervening
vegetation and development, and the relatively low -scale characteristics of the area, it is unlikely that
the Previously Proposed Project and other projects could be viewed in the same context. In addition, the
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 19 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
other nearby projects are speculative, and their height, bulk, and lighting characteristics are currently
unknown. As such, cumulative visual quality impacts, including new sources of shadows, are considered
less than significant.
Impacts of Revised Project
Impacts Not to Be Evaluated
VQ-2: Damage to Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway. As with the Previously Proposed
Project, no portion of the Project Site can be seen from I-280. Therefore, the Revised Project would
result in no impact related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
Impacts to Be Evaluated
As with the Previously Proposed Project, photomontages of three different locations have been prepared
by the Project Sponsor's architect, Gensler, for the Revised Project (as shown in Figures 13 through 15).
These visual simulations show how the proposed buildings would appear from surrounding locations.
However, proposed landscaping is not shown in the visual simulations, which represent a conservative
scenario of potential conditions, because landscaping would block some views of the proposed
buildings. At maturity, the vegetation at the Project Site should mask a substantial portion of the
buildings and make them visually subordinate to and harmonious with their surroundings. The
photomontages are used to provide a reasonable representation of the general massing, scale, and
height of the buildings upon completion. The photomontages for the Previously Proposed Project, as
discussed above, are also included for comparison with the Revised Project.
VQ-1: Alteration of Scenic Vistas. Similar to the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project
would increase massing and bulk considerably compared with existing conditions. As shown in
Figure 13, foreground views from Coyote Point Recreation Area are considered scenic vistas and would
remain the same with implementation of either the Previously Proposed Project or the Revised Project.
However, background views of the Santa Cruz Mountains would be altered because of the proposed
development in the middleground. As with the Previously Proposed Project, under the Revised Project,
Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would partially obscure existing views of the Santa Cruz Mountains as seen from
Coyote Point. However, existing development west of the Project Site is of similar size and scale and
already partially obstructs portions of the Santa Cruz Mountains. As such, although height and massing
would increase, the development would represent a minor part of the overall view available from this
location. Furthermore, this increased development at the Project Site under the Revised Project would
be similar in size and scale to that of the Previously Proposed Project. Therefore, the Revised Project, as
with the Previously Proposed Project, would have a less -than -significant impact on scenic vistas. The
Revised Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the certified Environmental
Impact Report (EIR).
VQ-3: Degradation of Existing Visual Character or Quality. Similar to the Previously Proposed
Project, the Revised Project would replace a vacant lot and its cracked paved surfaces, dirt mounds, and
ruderal weeds and shrubs with new buildings, enhanced landscaping, and bicycle/pedestrian amenities.
As with the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would develop buildings with heights of 32
to 144 feet, which would substantially increase building mass and alter the visual character of the Anza
Point subarea. However, this change would result in a more cohesive visual pattern, which is
encouraged by the City through policies and design guidelines contained in the Bayfront Specific Plan.
To reduce impacts on views of the Project Site, the Project Sponsor would be required to install
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 20 ICF 00014.16
r,
I
I
I
Sources: Atkins, 2011 and Genlser, 2016.
.. -
Figure 14
Visual Simulations — Northbound US 101
Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum
I
Sources: Atkins, 2011 and Genlser, 2016.
Figure 15
Visual Simulations — Southbound US 101
Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis I
TR-3: Freeway Segment Operations. Using the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo
County (C/CAG) travel forecast model, the impact on freeway segments was deemed significant if
project -generated traffic amounted to more than 1 percent of capacity on freeway segments with
substandard levels of service. Based on this standard, the Previously Proposed Project would have a
significant impact on the following six freeway segments during at least one peak hour:
• US 101, southbound between Millbrae Avenue and Broadway -both AM and PM peak hours
• US 101, northbound, between Peninsula Avenue and State Route (SR) 92 - both AM and PM
peak hours
• US 101, northbound, between SR 92 and Whipple Avenue - PM Peak Hour only
• US 101, northbound between Whipple Avenue and the Santa Clara county line - PM Peak Hour
only
• US 101, southbound between Whipple Avenue and the Santa Clara county line - both AM and
PM peak hours
• SR 92, eastbound between Interstate 280 and US 101 - both AM and PM peak hours
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation of significant Previously Proposed Project impacts on freeway
segments would require freeway widening to construct additional through lanes, thereby increasing
freeway capacity. However, it is not feasible for an individual development project to bear
responsibility for implementing such extensive transportation system improvements because of
acquisition constraints and right-of-way costs. In addition, no comprehensive project that would add
through lanes has been developed by Caltrans or C/CAG for individual projects to contribute to, and
no other mechanism exists for making a fair -share contribution. Therefore, the significant impacts
on the freeway segments identified above would be significant and unavoidable.
TR-4: Air Traffic Patterns. The Project Site is approximately 2 miles southeast of San Francisco
International Airport (SFO). The aeronautical study conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration
found that the proposed buildings and parking structure under the Previously Proposed Project would
not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. In addition, C/CAG
Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) staff members determined that the Previously Proposed Project
would not require formal review/action by the C/CAG ALUC or C/CAG Board of Directors because the
changes to the plan do not change the land use designation, and the heights proposed fall within the
allowable heights contained in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). As
such, the Previously Proposed Project would be in compliance with the ALUP, resulting in no impact.
TR-5: Transit Service, Pedestrian Facilities, and Bicycle Facilities. Transit service in the vicinity of
the Project Site is provided by Caltrain, SamTrans, and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) (with shuttle
service to the Millbrae BART station). The TDM program included as part of the Previously Proposed
Project would reduce the number of employee trips by 7 percent because of the proposed shuttle
service. Given the nearby transit service and the Previously Proposed Project -sponsored employee
shuttle, the existing and planned transit facilities would be adequate for the estimated project transit
demand, and the impacts associated with the addition of the Previously Proposed Project transit
demand would be less than significant.
Pedestrian traffic would be generated primarily by employees of the Previously Proposed Project while
walking to and from campus buildings, transit stops, and nearby businesses as well as visitors to the
adjacent San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail). The current sidewalk and Bay Trail network in the vicinity
of the Project Site is incomplete, forcing pedestrians to cross streets with no crosswalks. The Previously
Burlingame Point Project 3 24 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
IChapter 3. Environmental Analysis
,j Proposed Project includes a continuous sidewalk network along both sides of the proposed Airport
Boulevard realignment. The Previously Proposed Project would also include a new signalized
intersection along Airport Boulevard that would provide protected pedestrian crosswalks. The proposed
increased pedestrian connectivity along Airport Boulevard would be a beneficial impact of the
Previously Proposed Project.
Bicycle routes are available on Airport Boulevard adjacent to the Project Site as well as on Broadway
and Bayshore Highway to the north. Under the site plan for the Previously Proposed Project, the Bay
Trail and the Spur Trail system along Sanchez Channel would be the primary means of bicycle access to
the Project Site. Development of the Project Site would include a clearly marked 14-foot-wide inside
shared lane for on -street bicycle travel along the realigned Airport Boulevard. The bicycle demand
created by the Previously Proposed Project could be accommodated by the existing and planned bicycle
facilities in the area. Bicycle demand associated with the Previously Proposed Project would have a less -
than -significant impact on existing and planned bicycle facilities. Therefore, the Previously Proposed
Project would have a beneficial or less -than -significant impact on transit service, pedestrian facilities,
and bicycle facilities in the project area.
TR-6: Site Access, Circulation, and Parking. The Previously Proposed Project would realign Airport
Boulevard to pass through the middle of the Project Site, between the proposed buildings. Access to the
parking areas is proposed through two signalized intersections at previously entitled locations. Access
to all surface parking, above -grade parking, below -grade parking, and loading dock areas would be
provided through these signalized intersections to keep traffic out of the pedestrian promenade. The
Previously Proposed Project would install pedestrian treatments at the middle intersection, including
special pavers and a raised speed table. In addition, each underground parking garage would have two
entrance/exit points, as would the aboveground parking structure. The Previously Proposed Project
would include 2,318 parking spaces, which would be adequate to serve the proposed uses. The
Previously Proposed Project would have a less -than -significant impact on site access, circulation, and
parking.
TR-7: Cumulative Intersection Operations. Cumulative without- and with -Project peak -hour traffic
volumes were estimated using the C/CAG traffic model for 2035. The model takes into account pending
developments in the vicinity of the Project Site as well as forecasts of jobs, housing, and population for
the city, the county, and the region, as developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
The results show that most of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better
during both peak hours under cumulative conditions. The unsignalized intersection of Amphlett
Boulevard and Poplar Avenue would continue to operate at LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours
under cumulative conditions. The Previously Proposed Project would add traffic to the intersection,
which would be a significant impact.
MITIGATION MEASURE. The City of San Mateo is considering a range of potential improvements at
the Amphlett Boulevard/Poplar Avenue intersection to provide sufficient capacity for existing and
future traffic volumes. However, a specific improvement project has not been identified at this time.
The Project Sponsor shall make a fair -share contribution toward the cost of improvements at this
intersection. However, because no specific improvement project has been identified and because
this intersection is under the control of an agency other than the City of Burlingame (Caltrans and
San Mateo), the impact is significant and unavoidable.
TR-8: Cumulative Freeway Ramp Operations. The interchanges of US 101/Broadway, US 101/Anza
Boulevard, US 101/Airport Boulevard, and US 101/Poplar Avenue were analyzed, based on the ramps'
V/C ratios, to determine operating levels of service under cumulative conditions. With the addition of
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-25 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
project -generated traffic, the freeway ramps would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service
under cumulative conditions. As such, the Previously Proposed Project's cumulative impact would be
less than significant.
TR-9: Cumulative Freeway Segment Operations. The impact on freeway segments was deemed
significant if project -generated traffic amounted to more than 1 percent of capacity on freeway segments
with substandard levels of service. Based on this standard, under conditions with traffic from Project
Site only, the Project would have a significant impact on the following 10 freeway segments during at
least one peak hour:
• US 101, northbound between Millbrae Avenue and I-380 - AM and PM peak hours
• US 101, southbound between I-380 and Millbrae Avenue - AM Peak Hour
• US 101, southbound between Millbrae Avenue and Broadway - AM and PM peak hours
• US 101, northbound, between SR 92 and Peninsula Avenue - AM and PM peak hours
• US 101, southbound between Peninsula Avenue and SR 92 - AM Peak Hour
• US 101, northbound between SR 92 and Whipple Avenue - PM Peak Hour
• US 101, northbound between the Santa Clara county line and Whipple Avenue - PM Peak Hour
• US 101, southbound between Whipple Avenue and the Santa Clara county line - AM and PM
peak hours
• SR 92, westbound, between US 101 and I-280 - AM Peak Hour
• SR 92, eastbound between I-280 and US 101 - AM and PM peak hours
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation of significant Previously Proposed Project impacts on freeway
segments would require roadway widening to construct additional through lanes, thereby
increasing freeway capacity. It is not feasible for an individual development project to bear
responsibility for implementing such extensive transportation system improvements because of
acquisition constraints and right-of-way costs. Furthermore, no comprehensive project to add
through lanes has been developed by Caltrans or C/CAG for individual projects to contribute to.
Therefore, the significant cumulative impacts on the freeway segments identified above must be
considered significant and unavoidable.
Impacts of Revised Project
Impacts Not to Be Evaluated
TR-4: Air Traffic Patterns. The office building massing under the Revised Project would retain the
same building height as that of the Previously Proposed Project. Similar to the Previously Proposed
Project, the Revised Project would not require formal review/action by the C/CAG ALUC or C/CAG
Board of Directors because the changes to the plan would not change the land use designation, and the
heights proposed fall within the allowable heights contained in the San Mateo County Comprehensive
ALUP. As such, the Revised Project would be in compliance with the ALUP, resulting in no impact.
Impacts related to air traffic patterns under the Revised Project would be the same as those of the
Previously Proposed Project.
Burlingame Point Project 3 26 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Impacts to Be Evaluated
TR-1: Intersection Operations. A traffic analysis was prepared for the Revised Project.13 It concluded
that, despite changes in the square footage for office uses and amenities, the Revised Project would be
consistent with the trip generation estimates and the traffic impact findings of the 2011 TIA and
certified Final EIR. Similar to the Previously Proposed Project, the proposed TDM program presented in
the Revised Project is expected to reduce peak -hour trip generation by 13 percent and daily trip ratios
by 8 percent. As shown in Table 3-3, with this adjustment, the Revised Project would generate
approximately 8,087 daily trips, 1,033 AM Peak -Hour trips, and 995 PM Peak -Hour trips. Compared with
the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would result in a slight decrease in the number of
daily trips (128 trips) and PM Peak -Hour trips (18 trips) but a slight increase in AM Peak -Hour trips
(45 trips). Not all trips generated by the project would travel in the same direction while going to and
from the Project Site. Thus, not all 45 additional trips in the AM Peak Hour would travel through the
same intersections or make the same turning movements. Because of this, no single intersection would
j experience 45 additional AM Peak -Hour trips. Even the study intersections closest to the Project Site
would most likely experience only half that number of trips. The addition of approximately 20 to 25
trips at an intersection would not cause a significant impact, based on the City of Burlingame's definition
of significant impacts at intersections.14 Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in a significant
impact on any additional intersections. Although the total number of daily trips would decrease slightly
under the Revised Project, the unsignalized intersection at Amphlett Boulevard and Poplar Avenue
might continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours.
Similar to the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would add traffic to the intersection,
which would be a significant impact.
MITIGATION MEASURE. The City of San Mateo is considering a range of potential improvements at
the Amphlett Boulevard/Poplar Avenue intersection to provide sufficient capacity for existing and
future traffic volumes. However, a specific improvement project has not been identified at this time.
The Project Sponsor shall make a fair -share contribution toward the cost of improvements at this
intersection. However, because no specific improvement project has been identified and because
this intersection is under the control of an agency other than the City of Burlingame (Caltrans and
San Mateo), the impact would be significant and unavoidable. The Revised Project would not
result in any impacts beyond those identified in the certified Final EIR.
13 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2016. Traffic Analysis and Site Plan Review of the CEQA Addendum for
the 300 Airport Boulevard Project in Burlingame, California. June 13, 2016. Included as Appendix A of this
document.
14 The City of Burlingame does not have Council -adopted definitions for significant traffic impacts. However, the
standards used for this analysis have been used in other traffic studies and EIRs within the city. Therefore, as
with the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would have a significant adverse impact on traffic
conditions at a signalized intersection in Burlingame if, for any peak hour, (1) LOS at the intersection degrades
from an acceptable LOS of D or better under existing conditions to an unacceptable LOS of E or F under existing
plus -project conditions or (2) LOS at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS of E or F under existing conditions
and the addition of project trips causes average delay at the intersection to increase by 5 or more seconds.
Burlingame Point Project 3 27 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Table 3-3. Revised Project Trip Estimates
Land Use
Size
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour
In Out Total
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
Officea
711.9 ksf
5,835
802
110
920
149
727
876
Childcareb
5.25 ksf
389
34
30
64
30
34
65
Internal Reduction
-194
-17
-15
-32
-15
-17
-32
Health Clubs
7.4 ksf
244
5
5
10
15
11
26
Internal Reduction
-122
-3
-3
-5
-7
-6
-13
Retaild
6.6 ksf
283
4
2
6
12
13
25
Internal Reduction
-142
-2
-1
-3
-6
-6
-12
Restaurante
35.6 ksf
4,522
211
173
384
210
140
350
Internal Reduction
-2,261
-106
-87
-192
-105
-70
-175
TDM Reduction
-467
-105
-14
-120
-19
-94
-114
Total
8,087
832
201
1,033
263
732
995
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2016.
a. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2012. Trip Generation. Ninth Edition. General Office Building (710).
Fitted curve equation used. Proposed conference center (8,538 gsf) and the two elevators that would
serve the entire project (200 gsf) are included in the office square footage.
b• Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2012. Trip Generation. Ninth Edition. Day Care Center (565).
c. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2012. Trip Generation. Ninth Edition. Health/Fitness Club (492).
d. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2012. Trip Generation. Ninth Edition. Shopping Center (820).
e. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2012. Trip Generation. Ninth Edition. High -Turnover (Sit -Down)
Restaurant (932).
TR-2: Freeway Ramp Operations. The interchanges of US 101/Broadway, US 101/Anza Boulevard,
US 101/Airport Boulevard, and US 101/Poplar Avenue would continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service with implementation of the Revised Project. The Revised Project would generate fewer daily
trips than the Previously Proposed Project. As such, there would be no new or more significant impact
under the Revised Project. This impact would be less than significant.
TR-3: Freeway Segment Operations. Although the Revised Project would generate slightly fewer daily
vehicle trips than the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would still result in a significant
impact on the six freeway segments, as listed above.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation of significant Revised Project impacts on freeway segments
would require freeway widening to construct additional through lanes, thereby increasing freeway
capacity. However, it is not feasible for an individual development project to bear responsibility for
implementing such extensive transportation system improvements because of acquisition
constraints and right-of-way costs. In addition, no comprehensive project to add through lanes has
been developed by Caltrans or C/CAG for individual projects to contribute to, and no other
mechanism exists for making a fair -share contribution. Therefore, the significant impacts on the
freeway segments as a result of the Revised Project would be significant and unavoidable. The
Revised Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the certified Final EIR.
1-1
1
1
Burlingame Point Project 3 28 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
TR-5: Transit Service, Pedestrian Facilities, and Bicycle Facilities. The transit demand generated by
the Revised Project would be similar to that of the Previously Proposed Project. Given the nearby
Caltrain station, BART station, SamTrans bus routes, and the Previously Proposed Project -sponsored
employee shuttle, the existing and planned transit facilities would be adequate for the estimated Revised
Project transit demand, and the impacts associated with the addition of the Revised Project transit
demand would be less than significant.
The pedestrian traffic generated by the Revised Project would be similar to that of the Previously
Proposed Project. Pedestrian circulation improvements under the Revised Project would include new
sidewalks on both sides of Airport Boulevard, crosswalks on Airport Boulevard, and an east -west
pedestrian promenade that would bisect the Project Site. Walkways would serve the bicycle commuter
facilities and connect to Bay Trail segments. The pedestrian promenade would be publicly accessible
and would provide a path of entry to the office buildings. The landscaping and pedestrian promenade
between the buildings would be designed for the pedestrian experience rather than vehicles. Thus,
pedestrian circulation under the Revised Project would be improved compared with the Previously
Proposed Project. The number of bicycle trips generated by the Revised Project would be similar to that
of the Previously Proposed Project. Thus, similar to the Previously Proposed Project, the bicycle demand
created by the Revised Project could be accommodated by the existing and planned bicycle facilities in
the area.
As with the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would have a beneficial or less -than -
significant impact on transit service, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities in the project area. The
Revised Project would not result in a new or more significant impact compared with the Previously
Proposed Project. The Revised Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the
certified Final EIR.
TR-6: Site Access, Circulation, and Parking. Similar to the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised
Project would realign Airport Boulevard to pass through the middle of the Project Site, with proposed
buildings on either side of the realigned Airport Boulevard. Access to the parking areas is proposed
through two signalized intersections at previously entitled locations. Access to all surface parking,
above -grade parking, below -grade parking, and loading dock areas would be provided through these
signalized intersections to keep traffic out of the pedestrian promenade. In addition, each underground
parking garage would have two entrance/exit points, as would the aboveground parking structure.
Similar to the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would include 2,318 parking spaces. The
changes to the site plan under the Revised Project would not result in hazards regarding site access and
circulation.15 Overall, the Revised Project would have a less -than -significant impact on site access,
circulation, and parking.
TR-7: Cumulative Intersection Operations. As with the Previously Proposed Project, most of the study
intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels during both peak hours under cumulative
conditions. However, the unsignalized intersection of Amphlett Boulevard and Poplar Avenue could
continue to operate at unacceptable levels during both the AM and PM peak hours under cumulative
conditions. The Revised Project's contribution to this cumulative impact would be the same as under the
Previously Proposed Project. Because the Revised Project would add traffic to this intersection, this is
considered a significant impact.
is Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2016. Traffic Analysis and Site Plan Review of the CEQA Addendum for
the 300 Airport Boulevard Project in Burlingame, California. June 13, 2016. Included as Appendix A of this
document.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-29 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
MITIGATION MEASURE. The City of San Mateo is considering a range of potential improvements at
the Amphlett Boulevard/Poplar Avenue intersection to provide sufficient capacity for existing and
future traffic volume. However, a specific improvement project has not been identified at this time.
The Project Sponsor shall make a fair -share contribution toward the cost of improvements at this
intersection. However, because no specific improvement project has been identified and because
this intersection is under the control of an agency other than the City of Burlingame (Caltrans and
San Mateo), the impact must be considered significant and unavoidable. In addition, the Revised
Project would generate fewer daily trips than the Previously Proposed Project. As such, there
would be no new or more significant cumulative impact related to intersection operations.
TR-8: Cumulative Freeway Ramp Operations. The interchanges of US 101/Broadway, US 101/Anza
Boulevard, US 101/Airport Boulevard, and US 101/Poplar Avenue were analyzed, based on the ramps'
V/C ratios, to determine operating levels of service under cumulative conditions. With the addition of
project -generated traffic, the freeway ramps would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service
under cumulative conditions. As such, the Revised Project's cumulative impact would be less than
significant. However, the Revised Project would generate fewer daily trips than the Previously
Proposed Project. Thus, since the Revised Project's contribution to this cumulative impact would
decrease slightly, there would be no new or more significant cumulative impact related to freeway ramp
operations.
TR-9: Cumulative Freeway Segment Operations. Although assumptions for cumulative development
may have changed since the analysis in the EIR was conducted, the Revised Project's contribution to
cumulative freeway segment operations remains consistent with the Previously Proposed Project. The
impact on freeway segments was deemed significant if project -generated traffic amounted to more than
1 percent of capacity on freeway segments with substandard levels of service. Based on this standard,
under conditions with traffic from the Project Site, the Revised Project would have a significant impact
on the 10 freeway segments during at least one peak hour, as listed above for the Previously Proposed
Project.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation of significant project impacts on freeway segments would
require roadway widening to construct additional through lanes, thereby increasing freeway
capacity. It is not feasible for an individual development project to bear responsibility for
implementing such extensive transportation system improvements because of acquisition
constraints and right-of-way costs. Furthermore, no comprehensive project to add through lanes
has been developed by Caltrans or C/CAG for individual projects to contribute to. Therefore, the
significant cumulative impacts on the freeway segments identified above must be considered
significant and unavoidable. However, the Revised Project would generate fewer daily trips than
the Previously Proposed Project. As such, there would be no new or more significant cumulative
impact related to freeway segment operations.
Air Quality
Summary of Previously Proposed Project
AQ-1: Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans. The most current air quality plan for the region
is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD's) recently adopted 2010 Clean Air Plan
(CAP). For consistency with the 2010 CAP, a project must demonstrate that the population or vehicle -
miles -traveled (VMT) assumptions contained in the CAP would not be exceeded and that the project
would implement Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), as applicable. Development of the
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 30 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Previously Proposed Project under the worst -case employment scenario could increase the number of
residents in the county by approximately 0.10 percent. Development of the Previously Proposed Project
would also result in 8,215 net new vehicle trips per day,16 corresponding to a regional increase in VMT
totaling 64,629 miles per day. The addition of Previously Proposed Project VMT to the 2035 forecast
would increase VMT by 0.33 percent.
The Previously Proposed Project would include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
to reduce the volume of vehicular traffic generated at the site. The transportation improvements
associated with the TDM program are supportive of the TCMs that were identified in the 2005 Ozone
Strategy as critical to attaining the California Clean Air Act ozone standard. However, because the
Previously Proposed Project would increase the VMT figure assumed under the CAP, it would not
conform to regional air quality plans and would have a significant impact on the implementation of state
and federal air quality plans. Given the extensive TDM measures already included in the Previously
Proposed Project, there are no additional feasible mitigation measures that would further reduce
impacts resulting from the increased VMT associated with the Previously Proposed Project. Therefore,
because the increase in VMT cannot be further mitigated, impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.
AQ-2: Violation of Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality Standards. Construction activities
associated with the Previously Proposed Project would require the use of heavy trucks, excavating and
grading equipment, concrete mixers, and other mobile and stationary construction equipment. Fugitive
dust emissions during construction would be caused by material handling and traffic on unpaved or
unimproved surfaces. Heavy construction activity on dry soil that would become exposed during
construction could cause dust emissions (usually monitored as particulate matter 10 microns in diameter
or less [PM10]), which could be annoying and/or unhealthy for persons near the construction area.
BAAQMD considers construction -related fugitive dust emissions to be less than significant with
implementation of BAAQMD-identified defined best management practices (BMPs) related to dust
control. However, without implementation of mitigation measures, the impact would be potentially
significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1 would require implementation of all
appropriate dust control measures recommended by BAAQMD. Inclusion of these measures in the
construction contracts for future development at the Project Site would reduce construction -related
air quality impacts to a less -than -significant level.
AQ-3: Compliance with BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Significance
Criteria Regarding Construction -related Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursor Emissions.
Emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors were modeled using URBEMIS program
defaults and BAAQMD-recommended settings and parameters, which are tied to the activity period and
site location. The model factored in the land use type and the size of each component of the Previously
Proposed Project as well as the expected duration of construction activity. The model also estimated
daily construction emissions under each construction scenario and phase of construction. Two different
construction scenarios were analyzed. One scenario separated construction of the Project Site into two
phases, and the other scenario combined construction of both campuses into a single phase.
Construction -related emissions of reactive organic gas (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) under each
scenario would have the potential to exceed the 2011 BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as shown in
Table 3-4, and would result in significant impacts on air quality.
16 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. 2011. Burlingame Point Traffic Impact Analysis.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 31 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Table 3-4. Previously Proposed Project Construction -Period Criteria Pollutant Emissions
ROG NOx Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5e
(lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day)
Maximum Unmitigated Daily Emissions
Phase I Only (East Campus)a 64.13 79.75 4.49 4.13
Phase II Only (West Campus)b 80.04 66.79 3.18 2.93
One Phase Only (East and West 108.43 84.13 4.74 4.36
Campus)
Maximum Mitigated Emissions
Phase I Only (East Campus) 58.71 64.51 2.53 2.32
Phase II Only (West Campus) 72.82 55.24 2.03 1.84 r
One Phase Only (East and West Campus) 83.5 74.14 3.05 2.77
BAAQMD Thresholdd 54 54 82 54
Combined Components Exceeds Yes Yes No No
Threshold?
Source: Atkins, 2011. Based on URBEMIS 2007, version 9.2.4, and compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8,
Rule 3. URBEMIS models are provided in Appendix D of the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Notes:
a. Phase I Only (East Campus) consists of the realignment of Airport Boulevard, civil grading, utilities
installation, construction of the underground parking structure at Buildings 131 and B2, construction of
Buildings B1 and B2, construction of the amenities building, and landscaping improvements.
b. Phase II Only (West Campus) consists of remaining civil and grading activities, construction of Buildings B3
and B4, construction of the parking structure, and additional landscaping and public access improvements.
c. Phase I Only (East and West Campus) consists of the realignment of Airport Boulevard; civil grading;
utilities installation; construction of the underground parking structure at Buildings 131 and 132;
construction of Buildings 131, B2, B3, and 134; construction of the amenities building; and landscaping and
public access improvements in a single phase.
d. BAAQMD California Environmental QualityAct Guidelines, May 2011.
e. Particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less.
1
MITIGATION MEASURES. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3.1 (construction
equipment emissions minimization) and AQ-3.2 (application of low-VOC coatings), construction -
related emissions would still have the potential to exceed the 2011 BAAQMD significance thresholds
for ROG and NOx. Therefore, construction emissions from Previously Proposed Project development
are considered significant and unavoidable.
AQ-4: Compliance with BAAQMD CEQA Significance Criteria Regarding Operational Criteria Air
Pollutants and Ozone Precursor Emissions. BAAQMD has established thresholds for projects that it
reviews for potential air quality impacts. These thresholds are based on the minimum size for a project
that BAAQMD considers capable of generating emissions with the potential to exceed the threshold of 54
pounds per day for ROG, NOx, and PM2.5 and 82 pounds per day for PM10.17 The net increase in
emissions under the Previously Proposed Project would be greater than BAAQMD's threshold for PM10,
as shown in Table 3-5.
17 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. California Environmental QualityAct Air Quality Guidelines.
Updated May 2011.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-32 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Table 3-5. Previously Proposed Project Daily Operational Air Pollutant Emissions'
Project Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Emissions Source ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Stationary 5.49 5.44 0.04 0.04
Vehicle 41.17 46.02 111.37 21.17
Sub -Total 46.66 51.46 111.41 21.21
BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Exceeds BAAQMD Thresholds? No No Yes No
Source: Atkins, 2011. Based on URBEMIS 2007, version 9.2.4. URBEMIS models are provided in Appendix D
of the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Note:
a. Emissions are based on the maximum development potential for the plan area in 2015, as described in
Chapter II, Project Description.
The substantial operational emissions generated by the Previously Proposed Project would have a
significant impact related to criteria pollutants. Because implementation of the TDM program was part
of the Previously Proposed Project, a reduction in the number of trips was reflected in the emissions
results. However, even with TDM measures, operational PM10 emissions generated by the Previously
Proposed Project would exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Exceedance of BAAQMD significance standards for
criteria pollutants would be a significant impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES. With the extensive TDM measures already included in the Previously
Proposed Project, there are no additional feasible mitigation measures that would further reduce
impacts resulting from increased VMT. Because the impact cannot be further mitigated, impacts
would be significant and unavoidable.
AQ-5: Expose Sensitive Receptors to PM2.5 and Toxic Air Contaminant Concentrations during
Operation or Construction. The nearest sensitive receptors are the residences located south and west
of US 101, approximately 0.25 mile away. Construction of the Previously Proposed Project would
introduce a childcare center and could result in health risks to receptors at the childcare center.
Construction Health Risk Analysis
The childcare center in the proposed amenities building would be constructed during Phase I and
operational during construction Phase II, thereby exposing users to construction emissions. The range of
unmitigated cancer risk at the modeled locations, representing the location of the amenities center and
the outside play area, is from 41.04 in 1 million to 133.02 in 1 million, well above the 10-in-l-million
threshold for individual sources and 100-in-l-million threshold for cumulative sources. Risk associated
only with the outdoor play yard is anticipated at between 41.04 in 1 million and 51.30 in 1 million, also
well above the individual impact threshold.
Non -cancer risk from the construction of Phase II within 200 meters of the operating childcare center is
anticipated to range from 0.08 in 1 million to 0.25 in 1 million, well below the regulatory threshold of 1
in 1 million for individual sources and 10 in 1 million for cumulative. Therefore, non -cancer risk would
be less than significant with respect to construction activities in the vicinity of the childcare center.
PM2.5 exposure from construction of Phase II is estimated to be from 0.38 to 1.23 microgram per cubic
meter (µg/m3), well above the 0.3 µg/m3 threshold for individual sources and 0.8 µg/m3 for cumulative
sources. The risk for the outdoor play yard is anticipated to be between 0.38 and 0.47 µg/m3, which also
exceeds the individual threshold but not the cumulative threshold.
Burlingame Point Project 3-33 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Operational Health Risk Analysis I
The screening -level analysis of permitted sources and roadways conducted for the Previously Proposed
Project demonstrated that the Project Site would not be exposed to individual emissions from offsite
stationary sources that would be above the thresholds for cancer risk (10 per million) or non -cancer
hazards (1 and 10) or PM2.5 concentrations (0.3 and 0.8 µg/m3) from either offsite stationary sources
or US 101. However, the screening levels anticipated from US 101 would exceed the individual risk
thresholds for the childcare center with respect to cancer risk. Therefore, a refined analysis related to
proximity to US 101 was conducted.
The cancer risk from locating the childcare center within 1,000 feet of US 101 was determined by the
dose multiplied by the cancer potency factor and then converted to risk per million people. Detailed
calculation of risk with respect to individual receptor locations on the Project Site is included in the
health risk assessment. The maximum potential cancer risk at any modeled onsite location is 3.0 per
million, which is below the 10 in 1 million individual -source threshold. The modeled locations,
representing the anticipated location of the amenities center and the outside play area, would result in a
cancer risk of between 2.7 and a maximum 3.0 per million. Cancer risk determinations are below the
respective threshold of 10 per million for individual risk assessment; therefore, the cancer risk for
occupants of the childcare center would be less than significant with respect to offsite as well as onsite
operational emissions.
If construction of the Previously Proposed Project is phased such that the childcare center is operational
while subsequent phases are being constructed, the Previously Proposed Project would result in a
cancer risk and PM2.5 exposure that would be above the recommended regulatory thresholds at both
the individual and cumulative levels. Therefore, impacts would be significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-5.1 (reduce risk of
exposure during construction), the risk inside the childcare center would be reduced from between
41.04 in 1 million and 133.02 in 1 million to 8.30 in 1 million adjacent in the portion of the building
associated with the location of the childcare center. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation
Measure AQ-5.1, the potential risk during operation of the childcare center would be reduced to less
than significant for both individual and cumulative risks during construction.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-5.1, the PM2.5 exposure risk inside the childcare
center would be reduced from between 0.38 µg/m3 and 1.23 µg/m3 to between 0.08 and 0.18
µg/m3, well below both the individual and cumulative thresholds. Therefore, with implementation
of Mitigation Measure AQ-5.1, potential impacts related to PM2.5 exposure during operation of the
childcare center would be reduced to less than significant on both an individual and cumulative
level during construction. Although the non -cancer risk is below the thresholds without mitigation,
implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-5.1 would further reduce the risk to between 0.02 in 1
million and 0.09 in 1 million.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-5.1 would also reduce the risk for the outdoor activity
center to a less -than -significant level with respect to both individual and cumulative risks during
construction. If implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-5.1 is not feasible, the childcare center
shall not be allowed to open until all construction activities for Phase II have been completed.
IMPROVEMENT MEASURES. As indicated above, operation of the Previously Proposed Project would
not result in significant health risks for sensitive receptors. The Project Sponsor of the Previously
Proposed Project has indicated that, as part of the operating conditions for the backup generators,
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-34 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
all testing and maintenance of the generators would be conducted when the childcare center is not
in operation. This would eliminate the potential for these onsite sources to represent an increased
health risk for students at the childcare center. Improvement measures would further reduce the
less -than -significant impact and ensure implementation of the operating conditions.
AQ-6: Carbon Monoxide Compliance with State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. The
traffic impact analysis indicates that the intersection with the highest approach volume under any
scenario is Bayshore Highway and Broadway, which has a peak -hour intersection approach volume of
5,994 vehicles per hour. Because this volume is substantially less than even the most stringent criterion
(24,000 vehicles per hour), impacts related to carbon monoxide concentrations are considered to be
less than significant.
AQ-7: Objectionable Odors. Construction activities would generate airborne odors that would be
associated with the operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust) and the application of
architectural coatings. These emissions would most likely occur during daytime hours only and be
isolated in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. As explained previously, there are no
residential uses adjacent to the Previously Proposed Project, and no residential uses are proposed as a
part of the Previously Proposed Project. Therefore, odors from Previously Proposed Project
construction would not affect a substantial number of people.
Office uses are not among the land uses that BAAQMD has identified as prime sources of odors (e.g.,
wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, certain manufacturing plants). The most likely source of
airborne odors associated with operation of the office or life science uses would be the refuse storage
area(s). These odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the storage area(s). Because the
refuse receptacles would have lids and be emptied on a regular basis, substantial odors would most
likely not have a chance to develop. In addition, residential uses have not been proposed as part of the
Previously Proposed Project. Therefore, there would be no adverse odor impacts on onsite or offsite
sensitive receptors and no impacts from operation of the Previously Proposed Project.
AQ-8: Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans. The anticipated growth associated with the
Previously Proposed Project would not be consistent with the CAP in that the Previously Proposed
Project is increasing VMT compared with base conditions without the Previously Proposed Project. The
Previously Proposed Project would implement transportation control and trip reduction measures that
would be consistent with BAAQMD's goals for reducing regional air pollutant emissions, as would most
likely be the case for all other development projects approved under the City's environmental review
process. However, the Previously Proposed Project's contribution to conflicting with or obstructing
implementation of the CAP is significant, and the cumulative effects under the Previously Proposed
Project would be significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE. The increase in VMT cannot be further mitigated for the Previously
Proposed Project, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts.
AQ-9: Cumulative Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursor Emissions - Construction
Activities. As discussed above under Impact AQ-3, development of the Previously Proposed Project
could exceed the 2011 BAAQMD thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx during construction.
BAAQMD considers projects that would result in a significant criteria air pollutant impact on a project
level to be projects that would also result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional criteria
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-35 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
air pollutants.18 Therefore, construction activities associated with the Previously Proposed Project
would contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to criteria air pollutants and ozone
precursors.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure AQ-3.1 is proposed to reduce criteria air pollutant and
ozone precursor emissions from construction of all project components; however, even with
implementation of the mitigation measure, construction -related emissions associated with the
Previously Proposed Project would still have the potential to exceed the 2011 BAAQMD significance
thresholds. As such, cumulative construction -related air emissions would be significant and
unavoidable.
AQ-10: Cumulative Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursor Emissions - Operational
Activities. Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from
normal day-to-day activities in the vicinity of the Previously Proposed Project and other development
projects. BAAQMD considers impacts from projects that are capable of generating emissions with the
potential to exceed the threshold of 54 pounds per day for ROG, NOx, and PM2.5 and 82 pounds per day
for PM10 to be significant.19 The Previously Proposed Project would generate emissions of these
pollutants during operation. Even with the TDM, which is incorporated as a component of the Previously
Proposed Project, the Previously Proposed Project's net increase in emissions would be greater than
BAAQMD's thresholds for ROG, NOx, and PM10. BAAQMD considers projects that would result in a
significant criteria air pollutant impact on a project level to be projects that would also result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to regional criteria air pollutants.20 Therefore, operational
activities associated with the Previously Proposed Project would contribute to a significant cumulative
impact with respect to criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation measures to further reduce VMT would not be feasible because,
according to the transportation impact analysis, in order to further reduce VMT, the number of daily
trips would need to be further reduced. The transportation impact analysis and URBEMIS models
already reflect achievable reductions in VMT and/or trips with the implementation of a TDM
program. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
AQ-11: Cumulative Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to PM2.5 and Toxic Air Contaminant
Concentrations during Operation or Construction. The maximum potential cancer risk at any
modeled onsite location is 3.00 per million. Although the unrefined cumulative cancer risk was below
the regulatory threshold before the refined analysis (49.810 per million with the threshold of 100 per
million), incorporation of the refined modeling for the amenities center results in a further decrease in
the cumulative cancer risk. As analyzed in AQ-5, above, all individual stationary sources would result in
less -than -significant impacts with respect to the childcare center, either through screening or refined
analysis. Implementation of the above improvement measures would further reduce the cumulative
impacts, which are expected to be below the respective thresholds for PM2.5, cancer risk, and non -
cancer risk. Therefore, the Previously Proposed Project would result in less -than -significant impacts
with respect to cumulative cancer, non -cancer, and PM2.5 impacts.
18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. California Environmental QualityAct Air Quality Guidelines.
Thresholds of Significance. Updated May 2011.
19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. California Environmental QualityAct Air Quality Guidelines.
Updated May 2011.
20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. California Environmental QualityAct Air Quality Guidelines.
Thresholds of Significance. Updated May 2011.
Burlingame Point Project 3 36 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Impacts of Revised Project
Impacts Not to Be Evaluated
AQ-7: Objectionable Odors. None of the activities associated with the Previously Proposed Project
would be likely to expose sensitive receptors to objectionable odors. Because the Revised Project would
not change the anticipated types of uses, the Revised Project also would not include any of the listed
land use types that could result in objectionable odors, nor would it include a new sensitive receptor
that could be affected by offsite odor generation. Therefore, impacts related to exposure to objectionable
odors during operation of the Revised Project would be less than significant, identical to that of the
Previously Proposed Project.
Impacts to Be Evaluated
AQ-1: Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans. The recommended measure for determining
project support of the primary goals of the 2010 CAP is consistency with BAAQMD-approved CEQA
thresholds of significance. Therefore, if approval of a project would not result in significant and
unavoidable air quality impacts after the application of all feasible mitigation, the project would be
considered consistent with the 2010 CAP. The Revised Project is not consistent with the 2010
CAP because emissions associated with the Revised Project would be in excess of BAAQMD thresholds,
as described under Impacts AQ-3 and AQ-4.
An additional method for demonstrating consistency with applicable air quality plans is for a project to
demonstrate that the population or VMT assumptions contained in the CAP would not be exceeded and
that the project would implement TCMs, as applicable. The Revised Project proposes minor changes to
square footage by land use, resulting in a slight decrease in the overall daily vehicle trip generation rate
and corresponding regional VMT compared with the Previously Proposed Project. The number of
assumed employees and associated new residents would be the same as the number assumed under the
Previously Proposed Project. The Revised Project would include the same TDM program as the
Previously Proposed Project to reduce vehicular traffic. The transportation improvements associated
with the TDM program are supportive of the TCMs that were identified in the 2005 Ozone Strategy as
critical to attaining the California Clean Air Act ozone standard. However, as with the Previously
Proposed Project, the Revised Project would increase the VMT figure assumed under the CAP. Therefore,
the Revised Project would not conform to regional air quality plans and would have a significant impact
on the implementation of state and federal air quality plans. Given the extensive TDM measures that are
already included in the Revised Project, there are no additional feasible mitigation measures to further
reduce impacts resulting from the increased VMT associated with the Revised Project. Therefore,
because the increase in VMT cannot be further mitigated and emissions associated with the Revised
Project would be in excess of BAAQMD thresholds, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The
Revised Project would not result in additional impacts compared with the Previously Proposed Project.
AQ-2: Violation of Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality Standards. Construction activity
associated with the Revised Project remains the same as that for the Previously Proposed Project, except
for a minor increase in the amount of excavation to be conducted to accommodate the increased
basement area for the Revised Project and a minor decrease in the amount of soil to be exported. The
additional excavation would increase the total amount of excavation from 75,000 cubic yards to 77,250
cubic yards; however, the total amount of soil to be exported offsite would decrease from 40,000 to
32,400 cubic yards. Compared with the Previously Proposed Project, the increase in excavation and
Burlingame Point Project 337 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 1CF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
decrease in hauling activities would be minor, resulting in minimal impacts related to emissions.
Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in any additional impacts not previously considered.
Without implementation of mitigation measures, the impact would be potentially significant, as with
the Previously Proposed Project.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1, as presented in the certified Final EIR, would
require implementation of all appropriate dust control measures recommended by BAAQMD.
Inclusion of these measures in the construction contracts for future development at the Project Site
would reduce construction -related air quality impacts to a less -than -significant level. The Revised
Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the EIR.
AQ-3: Compliance with BAAQMD CEQA Significance Criteria Regarding Construction -related
Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursor Emissions. Construction activity associated with the
Revised Project remains the same as that for the Previously Proposed Project, except for a minor
increase in excavation and a minor decrease in soil export. Construction activity associated with the
Revised Project would take place during one phase of construction only, a scenario that was analyzed in
the EIR for the Previously Proposed Project. As shown in Table 3-4, above, maximum unmitigated
construction emissions for one phase only would exceed BAAQMD's 54-pounds-per-day threshold of
significance for ROG and NOx.
Construction activities of the Previously Proposed Project were analyzed as starting in 2012 and ending
in 2014. Fleet -averaged emissions factors for construction equipment have decreased since the EIR was
completed because newer, more fuel -efficient construction equipment has replaced older, less -efficient
equipment. The amount of excavation under the Revised Project would be slightly greater than what
was disclosed in the EIR because of the increased basement size. Although fleet -averaged emissions
factors for construction equipment would be lower, construction emissions are conservatively assumed
to remain significant for the Revised Project.
MITIGATION MEASURES. The Revised Project, as with the Previously Proposed Project, would be
required to implement Mitigation Measures AQ-3.1 (construction equipment emissions
minimization) and AQ-3.2 (application of low-VOC coatings). However, as shown in Table 3-4, even
with implementation of these mitigation measures, construction -related emissions would still
exceed BAAQMD's significance thresholds for ROG and NOx, resulting in significant and
unavoidable impacts. Regardless, the Revised Project would not result in any impacts beyond those
identified in the EIR.
AQ-4: Compliance with BAAQMD CEQA Significance Criteria Regarding Operational Criteria Air
Pollutants and Ozone Precursor Emissions. Criteria pollutant emissions result from traffic, area
sources, and natural gas combustion associated with the operational activities of a project after buildout.
Emergency generator testing would occur periodically during operation of the Revised Project, adding
to the emission of criteria pollutants. However, only two emergency generators are included in the
Revised Project; four emergency generators were proposed under the Previously Proposed Project.
Thus, under the Revised Project, a slight decrease in stationary -source criteria pollutant emissions is
expected compared with the Previously Proposed Project.
The Revised Project would result in the same total number of parking spaces as proposed under the
Previously Proposed Project. All TDM measures associated with the Previously Proposed Project, as well
as the commitment to seek LEED Gold or equivalent certification, are included in the Revised Project.
Therefore, as with the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would not exceed the threshold
of 54 pounds per day for ROG, NOx, or PM2.5.
Burlingame Point Project 3 38 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Operational PM10 emissions generated by the Previously Proposed Project would exceed BAAQMD
thresholds, as shown in Table 3-5. The total number of daily vehicle trips would decrease from 8,215
under the Previously Proposed Project to 8,087 under the Revised Project. This reduction in the number
of vehicle trips (i.e., 128 trips) would, in turn, reduce overall vehicle emissions associated with the
Revised Project. Regardless, even though there would be a slight decrease in operational emissions
under the Revised Project, emissions would still exceed the threshold for PM10, resulting in a
significant impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Given the extensive TDM measures already included in the Revised
Project, there are no additional feasible mitigation measures that would further reduce impacts
related to VMT. Although overall VMT under the Revised Project would decrease slightly compared
with the Previously Proposed Project, because the impact cannot be further mitigated, impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable. The Revised Project would not result in any impacts
beyond those identified in the EIR.
AQ-5: Expose Sensitive Receptors to PM2.5 and Toxic Air Contaminant Concentrations during
Operation or Construction.
Construction
The level of construction activity related to the Revised Project is anticipated to be slightly greater than
that of the Previously Proposed Project (due to the increased basement size) but would occur during
only one phase of construction instead of two. The childcare center associated with the Revised Project
would not be operational concurrent with construction; therefore, these sensitive receptors would not
be subject to construction -related cancer and non -cancer risks or PM2.5 exposure, as described in the
EIR. All health risks and risks related to exposure to construction -related PM2.5 and toxic air
contaminant (TAC) concentrations under the Revised Project would thus be below regulatory
thresholds, resulting in less -than -significant impacts during construction.
Operation
A detailed analysis of risks to individual receptor locations on the Project Site under the Previously
Proposed Project is provided in the EIR. The cancer risk for occupants of the childcare center were
found to be below the 10-per-million threshold for an individual risk assessment of offsite as well as
onsite operational emissions. Because the Revised Project proposes to include a childcare facility and
two onsite emergency generators instead of four, as described in the EIR for the Previously Proposed
Project, the cancer risk to onsite receptors would remain less than significant.
IMPROVEMENT MEASURES. Unlike the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would not
be subject to Mitigation Measure AQ-5.1, which would reduce the risk of exposure during
construction. Under the Revised Project, because construction would occur only during one phase,
sensitive receptors would not be present on the Project Site during the construction period;
therefore, mitigation is not required. Although operational impacts would also be less than
significant, as with the Previously Proposed Project, the Improvement Measures described in the
EIR would still apply. These improvement measures are designed to further reduce health risks at
the childcare facility due to emergency generator testing. The Revised Project would not result in
any impacts beyond those identified in the EIR.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 39 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
AQ-6: Carbon Monoxide Compliance with State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. The
Revised Project is anticipated to result in a slight decrease in the total number of daily trips compared
with the Previously Proposed Project.21 The Revised Project would result in the same number of
employees and new residents as the Previously Proposed Project. The Revised Project proposes the
same number of parking stalls as the Previously Proposed Project. Localized carbon monoxide impacts
are determined by the number of vehicles queuing at any given intersection. Although AM Peak Hour
traffic would increase slightly under the Revised Project, PM Peak Hour traffic and the total number of
daily trips generated by the Revised Project would decrease slightly compared with the Previously
Proposed Project. Therefore, the Revised Project would result in no additional impacts with respect to
carbon monoxide emissions. As with the Previously Proposed Project, impacts related to carbon
monoxide concentrations are considered to be less than significant.
AQ-8: Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans. The Revised Project would result in a slight
decrease in daily vehicle trip generation; the number of employees would remain the same as under the
Previously Proposed Project. Regional VMT calculations are based on these numbers; therefore, VMT
impacts would remain relatively the same as those of the Previously Proposed Project. The Revised
Project would result in no additional impacts with respect to plan consistency. As with the Previously
Proposed Project, the Revised Project's contribution to conflicting with or obstructing implementation
of the CAP is significant; the cumulative effects with the Revised Project would be significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE. The increase in VMT could not be further mitigated for the Revised Project,
resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts.
AQ-9: Cumulative Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursor Emissions - Construction
Activities. Development of the Revised Project could result in the 2011 BAAQMD thresholds of
significance for ROG and NOx being exceeded during construction. BAAQMD considers projects that
would result in a significant criteria air pollutant impact on a project level to be projects that would also
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional criteria air pollutants.22 Therefore,
construction activities associated with the Revised Project would contribute to a significant cumulative
impact related to criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure AQ-3.1 is proposed to reduce criteria air pollutant and
ozone precursor emissions from construction of all components of the Revised Project. However,
even with implementation of the mitigation measure, construction -related emissions associated
with the Revised Project would still have the potential to exceed the 2011 BAAQMD significance
thresholds. As such, cumulative construction -related air emissions would remain significant and
unavoidable. The Revised Project would not result in any cumulative impacts beyond those
identified in the EIR.
AQ-10: Cumulative Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursor Emissions - Operational '
Activities. Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from
normal day-to-day activities in the vicinity of the Revised Project and other development projects. As
shown above in Table 3-5, even with the TDM mitigation measures that were incorporated as a
21 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2016. Traffic Analysis and Site Plan Review of the CEQA Addendum for
the 300 Airport Boulevard Project in Burlingame, California. June 13, 2016. Included as Appendix A of this
document.
22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. California Environmental QualityAct Air Quality Guidelines.
Thresholds of Significance. Updated May 2011.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-40 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
component of the Revised Project (which are the same as for the Previously Proposed Project), the net
increase in emissions under the Revised Project would be greater than BAAQMD's thresholds for ROG,
NOx, and PM10. Although area -source emissions, as shown in Table 3-5, would decrease under the
Revised Project because fewer emergency generators would be required compared with the Previously
Proposed Project (i.e., two generators instead of four), cumulative emissions would still be greater than
BAAQMD's thresholds for ROG, NOx, and PM10. BAAQMD considers projects that would result in a
significant criteria air pollutant impact on a project level to be projects that would also result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to regional criteria air pollutants.23 Therefore, operational
activities associated with the Revised Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact related to criteria air pollutant and ozone precursors. The Revised Project would not result in
any cumulative impacts beyond those identified in the EIR.
AQ-11: Cumulative Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to PM2.5 and Toxic Air Contaminant
Concentrations during Operation or Construction. The Previously Proposed Project identified all
existing and foreseeable operational TAC and PM2.5 sources within 1,000 meters of the Project Site
boundary. These sources have not changed, except for the decrease in the number of emergency
generators, as described under Impact AQ-4 and Impact AQ-5 for the Revised Project. The cumulative
impacts of the Revised Project would add to the impacts related to the existing stationary source and
background traffic. The Previously Proposed Project would not exceed the cumulative thresholds for
cancer and non -cancer risk or PM2.5 concentrations. Because the sources of TAC and PM2.5 have not
changed between the Previously Proposed Project and the Revised Project, the Revised Project would
not exceed the cumulative thresholds for cancer and non -cancer risk or PM2.5 concentrations.
Therefore, the Revised Project would result in less -than -significant impacts with respect to cumulative
cancer, non -cancer, and PM2.5 impacts. Consequently, no new impacts are identified.
Climate Change
11 Summary of Previously Proposed Project
CC-1: Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction
The Previously Proposed Project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the
construction period related to the operation of construction equipment. Construction of the Previously
Proposed Project could be implemented in a single phase or two separate phases. As shown in Table 3-6,
the multi -phase construction scenario would generate slightly more GHG emissions than the single-
phase construction scenario.
To reduce construction -related GHG emissions, the Project Sponsor for the Previously Proposed Project
committed to achieving a 75 percent or greater construction waste diversion factor, exceeding the
60 percent diversion factor mandated in the City's Construction and Demolition Recycling Requirements
(Ordinance No. 1704). In addition, construction of the Previously Proposed Project would utilize
regional cradle -to -cradle building materials, recycled materials for the base buildings (e.g., aggregate,
concrete and steel, etc.), and sustainably harvested wood products when available. Therefore,
construction -related GHG emissions would be less than significant.
23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
Thresholds of Significance. Updated May 2011.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 41 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Table 3-6. Comparison Construction GHG Emissions
of -Related
+�
Multi -Phase Construction Scenario Single -Phase Construction Scenario
Phase I GHG Phase H GHG
Emissions Emission GHG Emission
(MT CO2e/year) (MT CO2e/year) (MT CO2e/year)
1,538.64 2,393.63 4,774.63
Totals 3,932.28 4,774.63
Source: Atkins, 2011. Based on URBEMIS 2007, version 9.2.4.
Note: Result has been converted from short tons (as presented in URBEMIS) to metric tons, refer to
Appendix F of the Draft EIR for further detail.
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
IMPROVEMENT MEASURE. Although impacts would be less than significant, an Improvement
Measure has been recommended to further reduce construction -related GHG emissions. This
Improvement Measure involves alternative -fueled vehicles in the construction fleet and building
materials from local sources in order to reduce GHG emissions from construction activities.
Operational
The Previously Proposed Project would implement a TDM program in order to reduce the number of
vehicle trips. The TDM program would reduce the daily trip rate by approximately 13 percent than
implementation of the Previously Proposed Project without TDM measures. Because many of the
project -specific design features provided by the Project Sponsor for the Previously Proposed Project did
not contain the level of detail necessary to estimate associated reductions in GHG emissions, with the
exception of the TDM program, the Previously Proposed Project was modeled without incorporation of
project -specific sustainability features. Instead, the project -specific sustainability features were
recommended as mitigation measures so that numeric values could be assigned to them, thereby
making associated reductions in GHG emissions quantifiable.
The unmitigated Previously Proposed Project would result in the generation of approximately
18,028.79 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) per year, as shown in Table 3-7. When
considered on per -service -population basis, the Previously Proposed Project would generate
approximately 7.28 MT CO2e per employee (based on a total of 2,475 employees under the office
scenario, which is the most conservative assumption for the Previously Proposed Project). Therefore,
operation of the Previously Proposed Project would exceed the BAAQMD threshold for GHG emissions of
4.6 MT CO2e per service population and result in a significant impact.
Burlingame Point Project 3-42 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
ITable 3-7. Summary of Operational GHG Emissions from the Previously Proposed Project
Unmitigated GHG Emission
Source of Emissions (MT CO2e/year)
Mitigated GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e/year)
Transportation
10,858.2a
9,484.31
Area Sources
1.14
1.14
Electricity
3,609.30
2,379.30
Natural Gas
1,097.20
812.0
Water and Wastewater
125.73
62.10
Solid Waste
2,337.22
2,103.50
Agriculture
0.00
0.00
Off -Road Equipment
0.00
0.00
Refrigerants
0.00
0.00
Sequestration
N/A
0.00
Emission Credits
N/A
0.00
Totals
18,028.79
14,842.35
Source: Atkins, 2011. Based on BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM). Version 1.1.9 (beta).
Note:
a. This value was derived by increasing transportation sector GHG emissions by 13 percent to reflect
operation of the Previously Proposed
Project without the TDM program. This was done manually
because, as described above, the inputs
used in BGM to generate estimated operational GHG emissions
incorporated the TDM program.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CC-1.1 through CC-1.8 would
reduce GHG emissions associated with operation of the Previously Proposed Project. These
measures would incorporate: GHG reduction measures for maintenance activities, vegetation into
Project design, renewable energy system, drought -tolerant landscaping, cool roof material, water
conservation measures, emergency efficiency beyond Title 24 standards, and operational solid
waste reductions. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce
operational climate change impacts from the Previously Proposed Project but would not reduce GHG
emissions below the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e per service population. Operation of the
Previously Proposed Project with mitigation and the TDM program would result in approximately
6.00 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, the GHG emissions of the Previously Proposed Project, as well as
the Previously Proposed Project's contributions to global climate change, would remain significant
and unavoidable.
CC-2: Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations Regarding a Reduction in GHG
Emissions. As described in applicable plans and regulations, the City adopted a CAP in 2009 to identify
methods to reduce local GHG emissions. The Previously Proposed Project would exceed BAAQMD's
threshold for operational GHG emissions, even with implementation of the mitigation measures
identified under Impact CC-1, above. Therefore, it would inhibit the City with respect to meeting the
short- and long-term GHG reduction goals established in the CAP. Implementation of the Previously
Proposed Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to state and local GHG
reduction plans, policies, and regulations.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 43 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Cumulative Impacts. The analysis of the Previously Proposed Project's climate change impact,
discussed above, is an analysis of its contribution to a cumulatively significant global impact through the
emission of GHGs. The cumulative impacts of the Previously Proposed Project, with respect to the issue
of climate change, are therefore captured in the project -level analysis, and no further cumulative
analysis is necessary.
Impacts of Revised Project '
CC-1: Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction
All construction activities associated with the Revised Project would occur during one phase of
construction. The single-phase construction scenario, as described and modeled in the EIR, would generate
approximately 4,775 MT CO2e per year of construction. The Revised Project would result in a slight
increase in excavation but a decrease in soil export. Therefore, it is expected that GHG emissions associated
with construction of the Revised Project would be similar to those of the Previously Proposed Project.
However, to reduce construction -related GHG emissions, the Project Sponsor has committed to achieving a
75 percent or greater waste diversion factor. Although not required, the Revised Project could also
implement the Improvement Measure recommended for the Previously Proposed Project, which would
result in at least 15 percent of construction vehicles and equipment using alternative fuels. Furthermore,
the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a minimum of 10 percent of building materials are locally sourced,
where feasible. Therefore, as with the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project's construction -
related GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Operational
Direct emissions from traffic and area sources and indirect emissions from energy, water use,
wastewater, and waste management would occur every year after buildout of the Revised Project.
Overall emissions from the Revised Project would be slightly lower compared with the Previously
Proposed Project because of a slight decrease in motor vehicle emissions. Monthly emergency generator
testing would also occur. Project -specific information from the Previously Proposed Project analysis has
not changed with respect to total square footage for all buildings, type of building use, and the total
number of parking spaces. However, only two emergency generators are included in the Revised Project
rather than four, as proposed under the Previously Proposed Project. Small changes in the design of each
building, as well as the materials used in the construction of each building, would result in minor
changes in the Revised Project's operational GHG emissions. All other sources of GHG emissions
associated with the Previously Proposed Project would remain the same under the Revised Project.
Although the number of vehicle trips and emergency generators would decrease, it is conservatively
assumed that operation of the Revised Project would exceed the BAAQMD threshold for GHG emissions
(i.e., 4.6 MT CO2e per service population), resulting in a significant impact, similar to that of the
Previously Proposed Project.
MITIGATION MEASURES. The Revised Project would still implement the TDM measures included in
the Previously Proposed Project and seek LEED Gold or equivalent certification. The Revised Project
would also include energy conservation measures and sustainable design strategies, as described in
the EIR under Mitigation Measures CC-1.1 through CC-1.8. Therefore, GHG emissions under the
Revised Project would remain significant and unavoidable but would not result in any impacts
beyond those identified in the EIR.
Burlingame Point Project 3-44 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
CC-2: Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations Regarding a Reduction in GHG
Emissions. The City of Burlingame adopted a CAP in 2009 to identify methods to reduce local GHG
emissions. The CAP is designed to meet the requirements mandated by Assembly Bill 32 (i.e., to reduce
emissions by 15 percent levels measured in 2005 by 2020 and achieve an 80 percent reduction by
2050). The Previously Proposed Project and the Revised Project would comply with the reduction
measures and recommendations identified in CAP Phase I: High -Impact GHG Reduction Programs for
Implementation Prior to 2012. A complete list of the Revised Project's energy conservation strategies is
provided in Mitigation Measures CC-1 through CC-8. However, the Previously Proposed Project and the
Revised Project would exceed BAAQMD's threshold for operational GHG emissions, even with
implementation of Mitigation Measures CC-1 through CC-8. Therefore, it would inhibit the City in
meeting the short- and long-term GHG reduction goals established in the CAP. Implementation of the
Revised Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to state and local GHG
reduction plans, policies, and regulations but would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in
the EIR.
Cumulative Impacts. The analysis of the Revised Project's climate change impact, discussed above, is an
analysis of the Revised Project's contribution to a cumulatively significant global impact through its
emission of GHGs. The cumulative impacts of the Revised Project, with respect to the issue of climate
change, are therefore captured in the project -level analysis, and no further cumulative analysis is
necessary.
Noise
Summary of Previously Proposed Project
NO-1: Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels During Construction. The closest sensitive
receptors to the Project Site include the intermittent users of the Bay Trail and Fisherman's Park, which
is approximately 400 feet north of the Project Site. The City Noise Ordinance prohibits the generation of
construction noise between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday and between
the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. Sundays and holidays. No nighttime construction would be
required for the Previously Proposed Project; therefore, construction would be in compliance with the
noise ordinance.
The Previously Proposed Project would require the use of typical construction equipment, including
large machinery for earthwork, one or two pile-driver rigs, large concrete pumps, concrete trucks, large
cranes for steel and exterior facade installation, and typical delivery vehicles and small trucks. The Noise
Element of the City General Plan establishes allowable noise levels for individual pieces of construction
equipment. The City's allowable noise levels for construction could be achieved with feasible control
measures. Noise control devices (e.g., mufflers), quieter machinery, and other noise control measures
(e.g., surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), none of which would require a major
equipment redesign, could be used during construction. Additionally, construction impacts would be
temporary and would cease upon completion of construction. However, without implementation of best
management practices (BMPs) related to construction equipment, the operation of such equipment
would have the potential to generate noise levels that would exceed the general plan standards for
individual pieces of equipment.
Temporary impacts during construction could result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the Previously Proposed Project, resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Burlingame Point Project 3-45 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of the BMPs listed in Mitigation Measure NO-1.1
(implement best management practices to reduce construction noise) would reduce temporary
construction noise impacts to less -than -significant levels.
NO-2: Exposure of Persons to Excessive Ground -borne Vibration Levels during Construction.
Activities that typically cause substantial ground vibration, such as pile driving, are proposed for the
Previously Proposed Project. The closest residential uses are located approximately 0.25 mile
(1,320 feet) south of the Project Site, across US 101. These are located behind existing buildings and
roadway infrastructure. Vibration levels from construction activities, including pile driving, would not
exceed 80 vibration decibels (VdB) at a distance of 1,320 feet or result in sleep disturbance. At this
distance, construction vibration would not result in any building damage. Therefore, impacts related to
the exposure of residential areas to or the generation of excessive ground -borne vibration or ground- ,
borne noise levels would be less than significant.
The closest land uses to the Project Site include existing light -industrial buildings and warehouses to the
south along Beach Road and office buildings to the west across Sanchez Channel. Office buildings are
generally not sensitive to vibration; however, industrial buildings may include vibration -sensitive
equipment that would be disturbed by vibration levels greater than 65 VdB. The nearest industrial uses
are adjacent to the southern border of Project Site. Construction equipment for general construction
activities and pile driving would have the potential to exceed 65 VdB at 25 feet.
If pile driving were to result in vibration levels in excess of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
damage threshold of 0.2 inch per second (in/sec) to 0.5 in/sec, the Previously Proposed Project could
result in damage to adjacent structures. Pile driving associated with the Previously Proposed Project
would generate vibration levels above 0.5 in/sec at a distance of 25 feet, but peak vibration levels during
pile driving would be below the FTA threshold at a distance of 100 feet.
Pile driving would be required only during construction of building foundations. Although the closest
offsite uses are within 25 feet of the proposed parking structure, it is assumed that modern building
practices were used during construction of the existing buildings; therefore, the existing buildings would
most likely be able to withstand the limited duration of pile driving required for construction of the
parking structure. However, existing buildings are within the screening distance for potential structure
damage; therefore, vibration from construction activities would have the potential to result in damage to
existing offsite buildings. This would be a significant impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NO-2.1 through NO-2.3 would
reduce construction -related impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measure NO-2.1
would require the notification of nearby businesses of potential impacts to vibration -sensitive
equipment. Implementation of BMPs, as described in Mitigation Measure NO-2.2, would help reduce
impacts to any buildings identified with vibration -sensitive equipment. Mitigation Measure NO-2.3
would require the use alternative pile driving methods for piles driven within proximity of existing
vibration receptors in order to reduce vibration levels at the receptors to meet significance
thresholds.
NO-3: Exposure of People to Excess Traffic Noise. Areas along the main access routes to the Project
Site would experience an increase in traffic noise levels associated with operation of the Previously
Proposed Project. In addition, daily operation of new office uses would generate noise from new
stationary sources (e.g., noise from heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning [HVAC] systems; vehicle
noise from parking lots and structures; and noise associated with the delivery of supplies).
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 46 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
The Noise Element of the City General Plan establishes 65 A -weighted decibels (dBA), Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL), as the maximum outdoor noise level for land uses such as shopping centers,
self -generative business, commercial districts, offices, banks, clinics, hotels, and motels. New
construction or development should not be undertaken in noise environments that exceed 80 dBA CNEL
and contain residential and commercial land uses. Also, the City General Plan states that a new project
cannot cause an increase in the ambient noise level of more than 5 dBA at the property line.24 According
to the Community Standards for Noise Impacts from the Bayfront Specific Plan, which contains the City's
goals and development policies for growth and expansion in the Bayfront Area, land uses in the planning
area shall not increase noise levels at the property line by more than 5 dBA. Under current conditions,
the average daily noise environment at the Project Site is 65 dBA; therefore, an increase in noise to a
level above 70 dBA would be considered a substantial increase.
Trucks used for deliveries would result in intermittent noise (e.g., from idling engines or backup
warning signals). However, truck deliveries would be required to comply with the restrictions on hours
of operation established in the City Noise Ordinance. Compliance with the City Noise Ordinance would
reduce nuisance noise from truck deliveries to a less -than -significant level.
Operation of the Project Site would result in an increase in traffic volumes, which could increase ambient
noise levels at noise -sensitive locations along major vehicular access routes. However, development of the
Project Site would not have the potential to generate noise levels that would exceed the adopted threshold
for a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise. Traffic noise modeling for areas along major access
routes shows a noise level increase of 0.3 dBA to 2.2 dBA under the Previously Proposed Project, which is
below the threshold (i.e., a 5 dBA increase). Therefore, the Previously Proposed Project would not expose
people to excessive traffic noise, resulting in a less -than -significant impact.
NO-4: Increase in Ambient Noise Levels during Operation. Activities associated with daily operation
of the Previously Proposed Project would generate noise levels that would be comparable to noise levels
in a typical office park environment. The typical noise level for commercial areas is approximately
65 dBA.25 Therefore, activities associated with the Previously Proposed Project would not exceed
70 dBA and would not result in a substantial increase in the ambient noise level. However, the new
buildings and parking structure would require new HVAC systems. Mechanical HVAC equipment located
on the ground or the rooftops of new buildings would have the potential to generate noise levels that
would average 72 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet when operating continuously for 24 hours26 or
70 dBA CNEL when operating at a distance of 60 feet. Therefore, HVAC systems would have the potential
to exceed 70 dBA if they were to be located within 60 feet of the Project Site boundary. The amenities
center would be located within 60 feet of the site boundary. If HVAC systems on the office buildings or
the amenities center would be located within 60 feet of potential receptors on the Project Site boundary,
the Previously Proposed Project would have the potential to exceed 70 dBA at the boundary and result
in a 5 dBA increase compared with current ambient conditions. However, as part of the Previously
Proposed Project, all HVAC mechanical equipment would be located more than 60 feet from the nearest
property line. In addition, sound treatments, screens with metal louvers, and integral glass fiber -
reinforced concrete (GFRC) exterior walls would be included as part of the Previously Proposed Project.
24 City of Burlingame. 1975. Burlingame General Plan. Noise Element, adopted by City Council Resolution 69-75,
September 15,1975, p. 28.
25 California Department of Transportation. 1998. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.
October.
26 City of Santa Ana. 2010. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) Final Environmental Impact
Report (SCH No. 2006071100). Prepared by Atkins. May.
Burlingame Point Project 3 47 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
These noise enclosures for rooftop mechanical equipment would reduce ground -level noise levels to
70 dBA CNEL or less. As such, this impact would be less than significant. Four emergency generators
would be installed as part of the Previously Proposed Project. The units would require monthly testing.
However, noise from the generators would be temporary and intermittent in nature and would not
increase ambient noise levels, resulting in less -than -significant impacts.
Development on the Project Site would include a parking structure in the southwestern corner of the
site; underground parking under Buildings B1, B2, B3, and 134; and surface parking along Airport
Boulevard. Noise from parking areas is characterized as temporary and periodic. Noise from these
temporary and periodic noise sources across the Project Site would be different in kind, time, duration,
and location; therefore, the overall effects would be separate and, in most cases, would not affect the
same receptors at the same time. The type of noise associated with parking structures is considered a
nuisance noise effect, resulting in a less -than -significant impact.
As discussed under Impact NO-3, above, general deliveries would be conducted at drop-off areas close to
the entrances at all buildings. Trucks used for deliveries would result in intermittent noise (e.g., idling
engines or backup warning signals). However, truck deliveries would be required to comply with the
restrictions on hours of operation established in the City's Noise Ordinance. Compliance with the City
Noise Ordinance would reduce nuisance noise from truck deliveries to a less -than -significant level.
As discussed above, noise from daily operational activities, parking lots, and general deliveries would not
exceed the noise standards established by the City General Plan, Bayfront Specific Plan, or Municipal Code;
these impacts would be less than significant. However, as part of the Project, all HVAC equipment would be
provided with sound treatments, screens with metal louvers, and integral GFRC exterior walls to reduce
ground -level noise levels to 70 dBA CNEL or less. As such, this impact would be less than significant.
NO-S: Airport Noise. The Project Site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip but is located
within the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The site is
exposed to both overflight and backblast noise from aviation traffic. However, the Project Site does not
fall in the 65 dB CNEL, or higher, contours for noise generated by aircraft landing or taking off from the
airport, indicating that airport noise at the Project Site should be less than 65 dB.27 Noise generated
from traffic along US 101 is a greater concern than aircraft noise in the area. Therefore, employees
working at the Project Site would not be exposed to excessive aircraft noise levels, resulting in a less -
than -significant impact.
NO-6: Cumulative Construction Noise. Noise levels from construction of other foreseeable
development in the city would generally not combine to result in the exposure of people to a substantial
temporary increase in ambient noise levels during construction because of the localized nature of
construction noise impacts and the fact that construction throughout the city would not occur at the
same time. All the other projects would be located more than 1 mile from the Project Site. At this
distance, even unabated noise from pile driving would be reduced to below 55 dBA. Therefore,
construction noise from the Previously Proposed Project in combination with other projects would not
expose sensitive receptors to a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. As such, the Project's
cumulative impact would be less than significant.
NO-7: Cumulative Vibration Impacts. Vibration levels from construction of other development in the
city would generally not combine to result in the exposure of people to or the generation of excessive
ground -borne vibration because of the localized nature of vibration impacts and the fact that
27 San Mateo County. 1996. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. December.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 48 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
construction throughout the city would not occur at the same time. High levels of ground -borne
vibration at each of the construction sites would continue to be isolated and would affect only receptors
within proximity to individual pieces of construction equipment. All the other projects would be located
more than 1 mile from the Project Site. As such, the vibration impact of the Previously Proposed Project
in combination with vibration from other development would be less than significant.
NO-8: Cumulative Operational Noise. The significance of the Previously Proposed Project's total
operational noise impact is based on its incremental increase in noise levels in the vicinity. Other
development would not result in a substantial increase in noise levels. Therefore, the Previously
Proposed Project's cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Operation of other development projects would also have the potential to increase ambient noise levels.
These projects consist of residential development, commercial and office development, and an animal
shelter. The increased noise levels from these projects would not be expected to exceed existing ambient
noise levels because of heavy traffic and existing similar uses. Noise from HVAC systems would diminish
to below existing noise levels at a short distance from the Project Site. Parking lot noise and truck
deliveries would be intermittent throughout the city. Therefore, these noise sources would not combine
to exceed noise standards, resulting in less -than -significant cumulative impacts.
NO-9: Cumulative Airport Noise. Impacts related to aircraft noise are generally site specific because
development of one project would not affect whether or not another project would be within an airport
noise contour. However, if the cumulative projects would allow for development of new sensitive
receptors within incompatible airport noise level contours, a cumulative impact could occur. The
cumulative projects are located farther from the SFO than the Previously Proposed Project. The
Previously Proposed Project would not expose people to excessive airport noise. Therefore, a
cumulative impact would not occur, resulting in no impact.
Impacts of Revised Project
Impacts Not to Be Evaluated
There would be no additional impacts related to noise from airports, beyond those identified in the
certified Final EIR, as a result of the Revised Project.
NO-S: Airport Noise. The Project Site does not fall within the 65 dB CNEL, or higher, contour for noise
generated by aircraft landing or taking off at SFO, indicating that airport noise at the Project Site should
be less than 65 dB.28 Because the Revised Project is proposed to be developed at the same site as the
Previously Proposed Project, employees working at the Project Site would not be exposed to excessive
aircraft noise levels, resulting in a less -than -significant impact. Impacts related to airport noise under
the Revised Project would be the same as those of the Previously Proposed Project.
NO-9: Cumulative Airport Noise. With the exception of the 1300 Bayshore Highway project, other
development projects in the city are located farther from SFO. The Previously Proposed Project would
not expose people to excessive airport noise, and because the Revised Project would be developed at the
same site as the Previously Proposed Project, people working at the Project Site would not be exposed to
excessive aircraft noise levels. Although other cumulative projects are closer to SFO, the Revised
Project's contribution to exposure to airport noise is not considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts
related to airport noise under the Revised Project would be the same as those of the Previously
Proposed Project, resulting in a less -than -significant impact.
28 San Mateo County, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. November 2012.
Burlingame Point Project 3-49 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum iCF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Impacts to Be Evaluated
As with the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would have the potential to cause noise
impacts within the immediate area of the Project Site; the potential also exists for the Revised Project to
be affected by existing noise sources. The Revised Project includes revisions to construction schedules
and activities, a revised configuration and location for parking, revised and redesigned onsite outdoor
activity areas, and possible relocation of emergency generators and HVAC units, which include the use of
enclosures. In addition, slight changes to the uses within the buildings (i.e., office, retail, food/beverage,
and other amenities) would result in changes regarding the number of daily vehicle trips to and from the
Project Site. In general, the Revised Project would result in 43 additional trips in the AM Peak Hour, 18
fewer trips in the PM Peak Hour, and 128 fewer daily trips compared with the Previously Proposed
Project. These revisions are discussed below.
NO-1: Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels during Construction. The closest sensitive
receptors to the Project Site include intermittent users of the Bay Trail, which runs along the edges of
the Project Site. and Fisherman's Park, which is approximately 400 feet north of the Project Site. As with
the Previously Proposed Project, no nighttime construction would be required for the Revised Project;
therefore, construction would be in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. However, without
implementation of BMPs for construction equipment, operation of construction equipment would have
the potential to generate noise levels that would exceed the City General Plan standards for individual
pieces of equipment. Temporary impacts during construction could result in a temporary increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Revised Project, resulting in a potentially significant impact.
The same construction equipment described for the Previously Proposed Project would be used for the
Revised Project; however, a minor increase in excavation and a minor decrease in material hauling are
assumed with the Revised Project. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in any new impacts
beyond what was identified in the Previously Proposed Project Final EIR. As with the Previously
Proposed Project, the Revised Project would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels,
resulting in a potentially significant impact.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of the BMPs listed in Mitigation Measure NO-1.1, as
presented in the EIR, would reduce temporary construction noise impacts to less -than -significant
levels. The Revised Project would not result in any impacts beyond what was identified in the EIR.
NO-2: Exposure of Persons to Excessive Ground -borne Vibration Levels during Construction.
Ground -borne vibration would occur during construction at the Project Site as a result of construction
activities associated with the Revised Project. Activities that typically cause substantial ground
vibration, such as pile driving, are proposed for the Revised Project. Of the construction equipment to be
used onsite, trucks, pile -driving equipment, and bulldozers are the most likely to produce perceptible
vibration in nearby locations. The use of pile -driving equipment and bulldozers under the Revised
Project is the same as described under the Previously Proposed Project.
There would be a slight increase in the number of pieces of construction equipment that would most
likely produce perceptible vibration. However, due to distance, impacts related to the exposure of
residential areas to or the generation of excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels
with the Revised Project would remain less than significant. Construction equipment for general
construction activities and pile driving associated with the Revised Project would have the potential to
exceed 65 VdB at 25 feet. Vibration from construction activities related to the Revised Project would
have the potential to result in damage to existing offsite buildings. This would be a significant impact.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3 50 iCF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure NO-2.1, as presented in the EIR, would require the
notification of nearby businesses of potential impacts on vibration -sensitive equipment in order to
identify any such equipment in the vicinity of the Revised Project and implementation of BMPs, as
described in Mitigation Measure NO-2.2 and presented in the EIR, to help reduce impacts on any
buildings with vibration -sensitive equipment. Mitigation Measure NO-2.3, as presented in the EIR,
would require the use alternative pile -driving methods (e.g., drilled or steel piles) for piles driven
within proximity of existing vibration receptors in order to reduce vibration levels at the receptors
and meet significance thresholds. Implementation of these measures would reduce construction -
related impacts on vibration -sensitive equipment to a less -than -significant level. The Revised
Project would not result in any impacts beyond what was identified in the EIR.
NO-3: Exposure of People to Excess Traffic Noise. As with the Previously Proposed Project, traffic
noise levels along the main access roads to the Project Site would increase with operation of the Revised
Project. Daily operation of new office uses would generate noise from new stationary sources (e.g., noise
from HVAC systems; vehicle noise from parking lots and structures; and noise associated with the
delivery of supplies).
As described above, the Revised Project would result in fewer daily and PM Peak -Hour trips but a slight
increase in the number of AM Peak -Hour trips. Regardless, the change in traffic volumes, compared with
the Previously Proposed Project, would be minor and would not be expected to result in a perceivable
change with respect to traffic noise. In addition, as explained above, implementation of the Previously
Proposed Project would result in traffic noise levels that would be below the threshold. The addition of
45 AM Peak -Hour trips would not exceed the threshold on major access routes in the vicinity of the
Project Site.
Projected noise levels from surface parking lots and structures associated with the Revised Project
would change because of the decrease in the number of surface parking spaces and the increase in the
number of parking spaces in the parking structure compared with the Previously Proposed Project.
Thus, a corresponding decrease in noise from the surface parking lot and an increase in noise from the
parking structure is anticipated. Because the Revised Project would include the same total number of
parking spaces as the Previously Proposed Project, there would be no new or worsened impacts
related to noise from parking lots and structures. The locations of loading docks associated with the
four office buildings would change with the Revised Project to create a more direct path for delivery
trucks. However, the number of truck deliveries associated with the Revised Project would be the
same as discussed in the Previously Proposed Project certified Final EIR, and all truck deliveries
would still be required to comply with the restrictions on hours of operation established in the City
Noise Ordinance.
Development on the Project Site would not have the potential to generate noise levels that would exceed
the adopted threshold for a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise. Therefore, this impact would
be less than significant. Given the discussion above, the Revised Project would not introduce a new or
more significant impact related to traffic noise.
NO-4: Increase in Ambient Noise Levels during Operation. As described in the EIR for the Previously
Proposed Project, mechanical HVAC equipment units would be located on the tops of buildings and in
the basement of the parking structure. HVAC units associated with the Revised Project are assumed to
be located in the same locations as described for the Previously Proposed Project. Under the Previously
Proposed Project, all HVAC mechanical equipment would be located more than 60 feet from the nearest
property line; this requirement would apply to HVAC equipment associated with the Revised Project.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-51 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Two emergency generators would be installed as part of the Revised Project, compared with four under
the Previously Proposed Project. The unit would require monthly testing. Noise from the generator
would be temporary and intermittent in nature and would not increase ambient noise levels associated
with the Revised Project. Because there would be a decrease in the number of generators (i.e., four
under the Previously Proposed Project; two under the Revised Project), noise produced by generators
would decrease with the Revised Project and would continue to be less than significant.
The Previously Proposed Project included a parking structure, underground parking, and surface
parking. The total number of parking spaces associated with the Previously Proposed Project is equal to
the total number of parking spaces included under the Revised Project. Because noise from parking
areas is characterized as temporary and periodic noise, it is considered a nuisance noise effect. Similar
to the Previously Proposed Project, the impact would be less than significant under the Revised Project.
Truck deliveries would be required to comply with the restrictions on hours of operation established in
the City Noise Ordinance. With respect to the Revised Project, compliance with the City Noise Ordinance
would reduce nuisance noise from truck deliveries to a less -than -significant level.
As discussed above, noise from daily operational activity, parking lot noise, and general deliveries would
not exceed the noise standards established by the City General Plan, Bayfront Specific Plan, or Municipal
Code; these impacts would be less than significant. However, as part of the Revised Project, all HVAC
equipment shall be provided with sound treatments, screens with metal louvers, and integral GFRC
exterior walls to reduce ground -level noise levels to 70 dBA CNEL or less. As such, there would be no
new or more significant impact under the Revised Project. This impact would be less than significant.
NO-6: Cumulative Construction Noise. Noise levels from construction of other foreseeable
development in the city would generally not combine to result in the exposure of people to a substantial
temporary increase in ambient noise levels during construction of the Revised Project because of the
localized nature of construction noise impacts. All other foreseeable development projects are located
more than 0.5 mile from the Project Site. At this distance, even unabated noise from pile driving would
be reduced to below 55 dBA. Therefore, construction noise from the Revised Project in combination
with other projects would not expose sensitive receptors to a substantial increase in ambient noise
levels. This impact would be less than significant. As such, there would be no new or more significant
cumulative impact related to construction noise.
NO-7: Cumulative Vibration Impacts. Vibration from the construction of other developments in the
city would generally not combine with the Revised Project and expose people to or generate excessive
ground -borne vibration because of the localized nature of vibration impacts. High levels of ground -
borne vibration at each of the construction sites would continue to be isolated and would affect only
receptors within proximity to individual pieces of construction equipment. The vibration impact of the
Revised Project in combination with vibration from other development would be less than significant.
As such, there would be no new or more significant cumulative impact related to construction vibration.
NO-8: Cumulative Operational Noise. Operation of other projects in the vicinity of the Previously
Proposed Project included noise sources that would not combine to exceed noise standards, and
therefore, cumulative impacts related to operational noise were less than significant. Traffic noise and
operational noise associated with the Revised Project would not combine to exceed noise standards
because of the distance between the Project Site and all foreseeable development projects. Therefore,
there would be no new or more significant cumulative impact related to operational noise, resulting in a
less -than -significant cumulative impact.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-52 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Parks and Wind Effects on Recreation
Summary of Previously Proposed Project
RW-1: Effects on Windsurfing and Kiteboarding Recreational Resources. According to the wind
study conducted for the Previously Proposed Project,28 development would result in a 10 percent or
greater reduction in wind speeds in a confined area, extending approximately 400 feet east of the
existing Airport Boulevard bulkhead. In the north -south direction, this wind shadow would begin
approximately 400 feet north of the Coyote Point shoreline and extend approximately 400 feet from
that point to a point approximately 800 feet from the shoreline. The wind shadow caused by
construction of the Previously Proposed Project would not substantially affect the primary
windsurfing launch sites, transit lanes, or near -shore windsurfing and kite boarding areas at the
Coyote Point Recreation Area. Furthermore, because implementation of the Previously Proposed
Project would not result in a greater than 10 percent reduction in wind speed and turbulence at
irreplaceable launching and landing sites, or over large portions of transit routes or primary
windsurfing and kite boarding areas, the Previously Proposed Project would be consistent with the
Bayfront Specific Plan.
Although there was no project application for the development of the 350 Airport Boulevard site, the
wind study conducted for the Previously Proposed Project included a program -level analysis of potential
wind effects, assuming that the 350 Airport Boulevard site would be developed along with the
Previously Proposed Project. The previous wind study used applicable zoning designations to estimate
what could be built on the 350 Airport Boulevard site. The previous wind study determined the wind
shadow that would result from development of both the Previously Proposed Project and development
on the 350 Airport Boulevard site would extend farther north and east into the Bay compared to the
wind shadow associated with the Previously Proposed Project. However, since development on the 350
Airport Boulevard site was uncertain, and no design plans were available for that site, the certified Final
EIR concluded that with implementation of mitigation requiring a future wind study if a specific project
were to be proposed on the 350 Airport Boulevard site, impacts to wind -related recreation in the near -
shore area would remain less than significant.
RW-2: Existing Recreational Facilities. Implementation of the Previously Proposed Project would
result in approximately 2,475 employees (i.e., between office uses and amenities). The increase in new
residents as a result of the Previously Proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in
demand for or use of recreational facilities. Furthermore, the Previously Proposed Project would include
open space corridors between buildings and plazas and gathering spaces for employees and visitors,
which would offset any potential impacts on surrounding recreational areas or demand for new
recreational facilities. The Previously Proposed Project would also include connections to the
San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) via the east -west pedestrian promenade, smaller open space and
landscaped areas, and improvements to the eastern shoreline open space and Bay Trail along
San Francisco Bay (Bay). Along the eastern shoreline, the Bay Trail would be extended north and south
within the 100-foot shoreline band. A Bay Trail plaza and waterfront overlook would be located midway
along this stretch of Bay shoreline. In addition, the Previously Proposed Project would include similar
improvements to the Bay Spur Trail, located along the Sanchez Channel on the west side of the Project
Site. As such, implementation of the Previously Proposed Project would not result in substantial physical
deterioration of existing recreational facilities as a result of increased use, nor would the Previously
28 Ballanti, Donald. Potential Wind Conditions in the Bay East of the Proposed 300 Airport Boulevard Development,
Burlingame, California. Technical memorandum. November 9. Included as Appendix I of the Draft EIR.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-53 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
Proposed Project require expansion of existing facilities, which could have adverse environmental
effects. The Previously Proposed Project would have a less -than -significant impact on recreational
facilities and the environment.
RW-3: Cumulative Effects on Windsurfing Recreational Resources and Recreational Facilities.
There is no other development planned for the Bayfront Specific Plan area, and there would be no
cumulative impact on windsurfing recreational resources at Coyote Point Recreation Area. As described
under Impact RW-2, above, because of the inclusion of onsite open spaces and improvements to the
eastern shoreline open space and Bay Trail, the Previously Proposed Project would have a less -than -
significant impact with regard to the physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities as a result
of increased use. In addition, all improvements to public open spaces under the Previously Proposed
Project would adhere to the respective jurisdiction's design requirements to ensure that the
improvements would have less -than -significant environmental effects. When considered in the context
of other development within the city, the Previously Proposed Project would not result in cumulatively
considerable adverse effects on recreational facilities or the environment. Cumulative recreation
impacts would be less than significant.
Impacts of Revised Project
Impacts to Be Evaluated
RW-1: Effects on Windsurfing and Kiteboarding Recreational Resources. The Revised Project
would construct buildings with heights and overall massing that would be virtually identical to what
was proposed under the Previously Proposed Project. However, there would be differences in the
geometry and positions of the buildings. A wind study was conducted for the Revised Project,29 similar
to the wind study conducted for the Previously Proposed Project. According to the wind study
conducted for the Revised Project, development of the Revised Project would result a maximum
reduction in mean wind speeds of 3 percent whereas approximately 70 percent of the test locations ,
displayed unchanged or increased (up to 6 percent) wind speeds compared to those of the Previously
Proposed Project. Conversely, approximately 10 percent of the test locations experienced an averaged
increase in turbulence intensity (up to a 4 percent difference), while the remaining test locations
experienced an averaged unchanged or decreased turbulence intensity compared with the Previously
Proposed Project. The test results show that the difference in wind speeds associated with recreational
wind -associated activities between the Previously Proposed Project and the Revised Project would not
be significant. As with the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would not result in a
reduction of 10 percent or more in wind speeds at launching and landing sites, primary board sailing
areas, or large portions of transit routes. Therefore, the Revised Project would result in a less -than -
significant impact on windsurfing and kiteboarding recreational resources.
A separate wind study30 was conducted for the Revised Project plus a potential development at the 350
Airport Boulevard site, although there is currently no approved or proposed project for the 350 Airport
Boulevard site. Potential development on the 350 Airport Boulevard site was included in the wind study
for the Revised Project to maintain some consistency with the previously certified Final EIR and be able
to compare the wind impacts of the Previously Proposed Project and the Revised Project. According to
29 BMT Fluid Mechanics. 2016. Burlingame Point Development - Wind lmpactAnalysis. Technical Memorandum.
July 18. Included as Appendix B-1 of this document.
30 BMT Fluid Mechanics. 2016. Burlingame Point Development Including Potential Buildings at350Airport Boulevard
- Wind lmpactAnalysis. Technical Memorandum. July 18. Included as Appendix B-2 of this document.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-54 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
the wind study conducted for the Revised Project plus the potential development at the 350 Airport
Boulevard site, development would result a maximum reduction in mean wind speeds of 4 percent
whereas approximately 80 percent of the test locations displayed unchanged or increased (up to 4
percent) wind speeds compared to those of the Previously Proposed Project. Conversely, approximately
25 percent of the test locations experienced an averaged increase in turbulence intensity (up to a 5
percent difference), while the remaining test locations experienced an averaged unchanged or
decreased turbulence intensity compared with the Previously Proposed Project. The test results show
that the difference in wind speeds associated with recreational wind -associated activities between the
Previously Proposed Project and the Revised Project plus potential development at the 350 Airport
Boulevard site would not be significant. As with the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project
would not result in a reduction of 10 percent or more in wind speeds at launching and landing sites,
primary board sailing areas, or large portions of transit routes. However, since the development of the
350 Airport Boulevard site remains uncertain, and there are still no design plans available for the 350
Airport Boulevard site, the mitigation measure from the certified Final EIR requiring a wind study if a
project is proposed on that site would still be applicable. Therefore, the Revised Project plus potential
development at the 350 Airport Boulevard site would result in a less -than -significant impact on
windsurfing and kiteboarding recreational resources.
RW-2: Existing Recreational Facilities. The Revised Project would result in the same number of
employees at the Project Site as the Previously Proposed Project. Similar to the Previously Proposed
Project, employees from the Revised Project would represent a negligible increase in population when
considered in the context of the existing population and would not result in a substantial increase in
demand for or use of recreational facilities. Furthermore, the Revised Project would include a
pedestrian promenade between the buildings and gathering spaces for employees and visitors, which
would offset any potential impacts on surrounding recreational areas or demand for new recreational
facilities. The Revised Project would also include connections to the Bay Trail via the east -west
pedestrian promenade, smaller open space and landscaped areas, and improvements to the eastern
shoreline open space and Bay Trail along the Bay. In addition, the Revised Project would include
similar improvements to the Bay Spur Trail, located along the Sanchez Channel on the west side of the
Project Site. As such, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in substantial physical
deterioration of existing recreational facilities as a result of increased use, nor would the Revised
Project require expansion of existing facilities, which could have adverse environmental effects. The
Revised Project would have a less -than -significant impact on recreational facilities and the
environment.
RW-3: Cumulative Effects on Windsurfing Recreational Resources and Recreational Facilities. The
1300 Bayshore Highway project would be located within the Bayfront Specific Plan area. However, it is
not expected that this project, in combination with the Revised Project, would have a substantial
cumulative impact on windsurfing recreational resources at Coyote Point Recreation Area. The Revised
Project would not result in significant wind impacts; therefore, although wind conditions could change
in the area, the Revised Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Burlingame Point Project 3-55 July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum ICF 00014.16
Chapter 3. Environmental Analysis
As described under Impact RW-2, above, because of the inclusion of the pedestrian promenade and
improvements to the eastern shoreline open space and Bay Trail, the Revised Project would have a less -
than -significant impact with regard to the physical deterioration of existing recreation facilities as a
result of increased use. In addition, all improvements to public open spaces that would result from the
Revised Project would adhere to the respective jurisdiction's design requirements, ensuring that these
improvements would have less -than -significant environmental effects. When considered in the context
of other development within the city, the Revised Project would not result in cumulatively considerable
adverse effects on recreational facilities or the environment. Cumulative recreation impacts would be
less than significant.
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 3-56 ICF 00014.16
Chapter 4
CEQA Conclusions
4.1 CEQA Conclusion
Based on the analysis and discussion presented in this document, no supplemental or subsequent
environmental analysis is needed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, and 15164.
It is concluded that the analysis conducted, and the conclusions reached, in the Final EIR certified in
June 2012 remain valid. The Revised Project would not cause any new significant impacts or any
substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No changes have
occurred with respect to circumstances surrounding the Previously Proposed Project that would
cause significant environmental impacts to which the Revised Project would contribute
considerably. In addition, no new information has become available that shows that the Previously
Proposed Project or the Revised Project would cause significant new environmental impacts.
Therefore, no supplemental environmental review is required beyond this Addendum.
Date of Determination
I do hereby certify that the above determination has been made pursuant to State and local
requirements.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
City of Burlingame
Community Development Department - Planning Division
Burlingame Point Project July 2016
Environmental Impact Report Addendum 4-1 ICF 00014.16