The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1128-1132 Douglas Avenue - CEQA Document. .Y v �-J � �f ��! PS E O � ,,, �/�-`',��G 555 County Center Q'� I�' � � Redwood City, CA 94063-1665 � �� phone 650.3�3.4500 fax 650.599.7458 Ma t'� email c:l�rk �?'smcare.org Chief Elections Officer 8 Assessor-County Clerk-Recor we6 �u�,r`^� r � ` �_ i�� i ) 7��7 Date: 08/04/2017 �. � . �=.1'..'�'..�;.�r��.,�1�F To: CITY OF BURLINGAME `-�'-'' � ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. PLANNING DIVISION 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME. CA 94010 0 Final Posting Confirmation for Environmental Impact Reports Subject: Return of Environmental Documents Filed and Posted for 30 days. Public Resources Code Section 21092.3 The attached document(s), File Number 126854 By: was received, filed and a copy posted with the County Clerk on 06232017 and remained posted for thirty calendar days. GLENN S. CHANGTIN/COUNTY CLERK Deputy Clerk on behalf of Mark Church SS-12 Posting Confirmation Letter for Environmental lmpact Reports.doc Y�' State of California - Department of Fish and Wildlife '�,� ' 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT DFW 753.5a (Rev. 01/01/17) Previously DFG 753.5a � � Print� i l,:_:,��. . ZECEr IPT NUMBER: � ^ ,� 41 — 06232017 — O'J SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY. LEAD AGENCY City of Burlingame LEADAGENCY EMAIL Finalize&Email fE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (If applicable) DATE 06232017 DOCUMENT NUMBER l z� �5 �-�- PHONE NUMBER � � >TATE ZIP CODE � State Agency � Private Entity COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING San Mateo i � PROJECT TITLE Douglas Ave Multi-Family Residential Dev Project PROJECTAPPLICANT NAME PROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL W Meeker PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS CITY PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box) �✓ Local Public Agency � School District � Other Special District CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: � Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ❑ Mitigated/Negative Declaration (MND)(ND) ❑ Certified Regulatory Program document (CRP) ❑ Exempt from fee ❑ Notice of Exemption (attach) ❑ CDFW No Effect Determination (attach) ❑ Fee previously paid (attach previously issued cash receipt copy) $3,0�8.25 $ 3,078.25 $2,21625 $ 0.00 $1,046.50 $ 0.00 ❑ Water Right Application or Petition Fee (State Water Resources Control Board only) $850.00 $ 0 County documentary handling fee $ ❑ Other $ PAYMENT METHOD: ❑ Cash ❑ Credit �❑ Check /� Other . TOTAL RECEIVED $ ll SIGNATURE X I 11 1 11 3,128.25 aGENCY OF FILING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE Besz de la Vega - Deputy Clerk ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY - CDFW/ASB COPY - LEAD AGENCY COPY - GOUNTY CLERK DFW 753.5a (Rev. 20151215) County of San Mateo Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Mark Church 555 County Center Redwood City, CA, 94063 Finalization 2017041781 6/23/17 11:47 am 021 36 Item Title 1 EIR Fish & Game: Env Impact Report Document ID Amount DOC# 2017-000163 3128.25 Time Recorded 11:47 am Total 3128.25 Payment Type Amount Check tendered 3128.25 # 8164 Amount Due 0.00 THANK YOU PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR RECORDS TO: � � SU BJ ECT: NOTICE OF DET�RMlNATION Office of Planning and Research FROM: P.0 Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044F �� E I� SAN �""T�'� rnUNTY CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Dept. Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 County Clerk JUN 2 3 2017 County of San Mateo ^ j 555 County Center #1 MARK ur ��,r;, �.;� �;�g�' 1/ Redwood City, California 94063f3y �L� J Deputy Clerk Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Project Title 2015062033 William Meeker . �650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue and 524 Oak Grove Ave, City of Burlinaame, San Mateo County Project Location (indude County) Project Description: The applicant is proposing construction of a new, five-story, 27-unit residential apartment building with at-grade and below-grade parking at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue, zoned R-4. The proposed project includes demolishing the existing house and detached garage at 1132 Douglas Avenue and demolishing the existing four-unit apartment building at 1128 Douglas Avenue. The rear portion of the existing single family dwelling at 1128 Douglas Avenue is also proposed to be demolished, however the front half of the house is proposed to be relocated to 524 Oak Grove Avenue. This includes a first and second story addition to the house moved from 1128 Douglas Avenue and construction of a new detached garage. The overall proposed height of the new apartment building is 56 feet 10 inches to the top of the roof. The project includes 3 studio units, 14 one-bedroom units, 9 two-bedroom units and 1 three-bedroom unit. The average unit size proposed is 950 SF. There will be 12 at-grade parking spaces at the rear of the lot and 22 parking spaces in an underground garage, accessed via a 14'-0" wide driveway located at the south end of the lot and via a 9'-0" wide driveway located at the north end of the lot. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Aqency, has approved the above-described project on June 19, 2017 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project [❑will � will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. � An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ❑ A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: City of Burlingame, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 501 Primrose Road, Burlinqame CA 94010. 3. Mitigation measures [�were ❑ were not] made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [❑was �was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings (� were ❑ were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the Environmental Impact Report with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Burlingame, Community Development Department, Planning Divisionf 501 Primrose, oad, BurlingameF CA 94010. ,:� 2.-�i :�/ -- . Iliam Meeker, Community Devefopment Director Date NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: � Office of Planning and Research FROM P.0 Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-304 E�{DORSED � � � � �, , .itvwYME qFfICE OF TtE .t •.c �'TY CLER� RECARDtR ; ,;.v r.�.:r� ^ c.ourrrr cai.iF �� SU BJ ECT: CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Dept. Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 County Clerk Counry of San Mateo JUN 2 3 2017 555 Counry Center #1 MAF2K CWiJRCH, C�unty Clerk Redwood City, California 94063 By�-� . n�h��'�' Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Dou4las Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Project Title 2015062033 William Meeker (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 1128-1132 Doualas Avenue and 524 Oak Grove Ave, City of Burlingame San Mateo County Project Location (indude CountyJ Project Description: The applicant is proposing construction of a new, five-story, 27-unit residential apartment building with at-grade and below-grade parking at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue, zoned R-4. The proposed project includes demolishing the existing house and detached garage at 1132 Douglas Avenue and demolishing the existing four-unit apartment building at 1128 Douglas Avenue. The rear portion of the existing single family dwelling at 1128 Douglas Avenue is also proposed to be demolished, however the front half of the house is proposed to be relocated to 524 Oak Grove Avenue. This includes a first and second story addition to the house moved from 1128 Douglas Avenue and construction of a new detached garage. The overall proposed height of the new apartment building is 56 feet 10 inches to the top of the roof. The project includes 3 studio units, 14 one-bedroom units, 9 two-bedroom units and 1 three-bedroom unit. The average unit size proposed is 950 SF. There will be 12 at-grade parking spaces at the rear of the lot and 22 parking spaces in an underground garage, accessed via a 14'-0" wide driveway located at the south end of the lot and via a 9'-0" wide driveway located at the north end of the lot. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above-described project on June 19, 2017 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project [❑will � will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. � An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ❑ A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: Citv of Burlinqame Community Development De�artment, Planning Division, 501 Primrose Road Burlinqame CA 94010. 3. Mitigation measures [�were ❑ were not] made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [❑was �was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings (� were ❑ were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the Environmental Impact Report with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Burlinqame Community Development Department, Planning Division, 501 Iliam Meeker, Community Dev�topment Director Date �� State of California - Department of Fish and Wildlife '�,� ' 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT DFW 753.5a (Rev. 01/01/17) Previously DFG 753.5a r -- � Print �- RECEIPT NUMBER: 41 — 06232017 — SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVER; LEAD AGENCY City of Burlingame TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY. LEADAGENCY EMAIL COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING _.___ _._ _._ _ _�..__ __ San Mateo � Private Entity 3,078.25 0.00 0.00 PROJECT TITLE Douglas Ave Multi-Family Residential Dev Project PROJECTAPPLICANT NAME PROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL W Meeker PROJECTAPPUCANTADDRESS CITY PHONE NUMBER � � ATE IZIP CODE PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box) �✓ Local Public Agency � School District � Other Special District � State Agency CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: 0 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $3,078.25 $ ❑ Mitigated/Negative Declaration (MND)(ND) $2,216.25 $ ❑ Certified Regulatory Program document (CRP) $1,046.50 $ ❑ Exempt from fee ❑ Notice of Exemption (attach) ❑ CDFW No Effect Determination (attach) ❑ Fee previously paid (attach previously issued cash receipt copy) ❑ Water Right Application or Petition Fee (State Water Resources Control Board only) $850.00 $ 0 County documentary handling fee $ ❑ Other � $ PAYMENT METHOD: ❑ Cash ❑ Credit �❑ Check r TOTAL RECEIVED $ SIGNATURE X 0.00 50.00 3,128.25 DATE 06232017 DOCUMENTNUMBER \GENCY OF FILING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE Besz de la Vega - Deputy Clerk FinalizeBEmail CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (lf applicab/eJ ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY - CDFW/A58 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 2017041781 6/23/17 11:47 am 021 36 Item Title -------------------------------------------------- 1 EIR Fish & Game: Env Impact Report Document ID Amount DOC# 2017-000163 3128.25 Time Recorded 11:47 am Total 3128.25 Payment Type Amount Check tendered 3128.25 # 8164 Amount Due 0.00 THANK YOU PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR RECORDS HP LaserJet MFP M426fdw Fax Confirmation Jun-23 201i 1:52?M Job Date Time Type Identification 96 b/�3/LOii' _ ..,. .:'�i'M � _'r�i;:l 1_11� `.,�,`� `�t,�! CITY OF BURLINGAME P L A N N I N G D I V I S I O N TEL ;h50�, 5�9-?25J 'rAX �650) 65d-3790 Duration Pages Result 1:37 4 OK FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO FROM �ce ol Planning antl Reseamh Ruben Hunn. Senior Planner COMPANY DATF- June 23, 20�! FAX NUMBER. TOTAL NO OF PAGES 1916?559-3164 4,�nc:uGirg coversheet RE -. _ _ — _ .. _ ___ . _ nobce o! DeterminaUon - Stare Cleannghouse No. 2015D62033 :IURGFNT fAFOHNEViFw I":I'lEASECJMMLN' JVLEASEREPLV CP'.EASERECYCLF Dear Sir or Matlam Vlease see aLac�ed No��:etl o' Getermmatmn �or :he Uouqias Avenue Mul�i-Famdy Res�tlential Ueveiopmerl Prqect BCH k2015062C33', If yo� shoul0 have any questions. please !eel frae Io contact me. Best regartls. R�ben Munr. Semor via�ner Clry of Bul'.ingame ;650)556-725E(pnone? ;6501696J790 ('aK) murin@bcYingame.org 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLIhGAME CA • 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAME P L A N N I N G D I V I S I O N TEL. (650) 558-7250 FAX. (650) 696-3790 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: Office of Planning and Research Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner COMPANY: DATE: June 23, 2017 FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES: (916) 558-3164 4, including cover sheet RE: Notice of Determination — State Clearinghouse No. 2015062033 ❑ URGENT Q FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT O PLEASE REPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE Dear Sir or Madam, Please see attached Noticed of Determination for the Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project (SCH #2015062033). If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Ruben Hurin Senior Planner City of Burlingame (650) 558-7256 (phone) (650) 696-3790 (fax) rhurin@burlingame.org 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME CA • 94010 � ' � Cit of Burlin ame Y J r pouglas Avenue Multi-Family � Residential Development Project � Final Environmental Impact I�eport State Clearinghouse No. 2015062033 L. ' � February 2017 � Prepared for: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road [ Burlingame, CA 94010 � Prepared by; Panorama Environmental, Inc. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 740 L San Francisco, CA 9411 1 650-373-1200 laurie.hietter@panoramaenv.com C , 1 � PAN ''� AMA � ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. r One Embarcadero Center, Suite 740 San Francisco, CA 9411 1 650-373-1200 www.panoramaenv.com TABLE OF CONTENTS � � r- T�� nF �ONTENTS Listof Acronyms .....................................................................................................................................iii 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................1-1 � 1.1 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................. 1-1 � 1.2 Environmental Review Process .......................................................................................... 1-2 1,3 Purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report ....................................................... 1-2 1.4 Report Organization ............................................................................................................ 1-3 � 1.5 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Who Received the Draff EIR or Notice of Availability ...................................................................................... 1-4 � 1.6 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Commenting on the Draff EIR ...,, 1-4 2 Responses to Comments on the Draff EIR ...............................................................................2-1 � 2.1 Common Comments and Responses .............................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Public Meeting Comments ..............................................................................................2-10 2.3 California Department of Transportation ...................................................................... 2-30 � 2,4 HOA Board ..........................................................................................................................2-33 2.5 Anonymous Resident of Burlingame .............................................................................. 2-35 2.6 Clarke So .............................................................................................................................. 2-45 2.7 Danielle Rienks Comment Letter # 1 ............................................................................... 2-47 � 2.8 Danielle Rienks Comment Letter # 2 ............................................................................... 2-54 2.9 Dion Heffran ........................................................................................................................ 2-64 2.10 Gerald Weisl ........................................................................................................................ 2-66 . 2.11 John Root .............................................................................................................................2-68 3 Revisions to the Text of the Draff EIR ........................................................................................3-1 ( 3.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................3-1 L 3.2 Draff EIR Revisions .................................................................................................................3-1 � 4 References .................................................................................................................................4-1 List of Appendices Appendix A Mailing List of Individuals that Received the Notice of Availability � l■ Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 d TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables Table 1,5-1 Table 1.6-1 Table 2,1-1 Table 2,1-2 Table 2.1-3 Table 2,2-1 Table 2.2-2 Agencies and Organizations that Received the NOA .......................................... 1-4 Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals that Commented on the Draff EIR . 1-5 Proposed and Net New Project Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue Residential Project ......................................................2-2 Proposed Project Residential Units and City Parking Space Requirements ,,..,. 2-3 Inconsistencies with City of Burlingame Plans and Policies Due to the Height of the Proposed Project . ................................................................................. 2-6 Proposed Project's Consistency with Downtown Specific Plan Parking Goalsand Policies ....................................................................................................... 2-21 Enrollment Rate and Capacities at Burlingame High School, San Mateo High School, and Aragon High School ..............................................2-26 Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 91 LIST OF ACRONYMS k� C r � L t l r LIST OF ACRONYMS A AN Applicant : :• �• � C CEQA City CNDDB CS L � D DH DPW � DR E ` EIR L G cw � � H HCP HOA r Anonymous Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc. Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Environmental Quality Act City of Burlingame California Natural Diversity Database Clarke So Dion Heffran Burlingame Department of Public Works Danielle Rienks Environmental Impact Report Gerald Weisl Habitat Conservation Plan Home Owners' Association Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 i�i LIST OF ACRONYMS I ITE L LOS Institute of Traffic Engineering level-of-service M mgd millions of gallons per day MM Mitigation Measure mph miles per hour N NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NOA Notice of Availability NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System P PG&E PM R JR S SWRCB Pacific Gas and Electric Company Public Meeting John Root State Water Resources Control Board � � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 i�i 1 INTRODUCTION � � � l � 1 I�1TR��'�a�TION 1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc., representing the owner (collectively "the Applicant"), submitted an application to the City of Burlingame (City) Department of Community Development to demolish 2 single family houses and a 4-unit apartment building on 2 adjacent lots, and construct a 27-unit, 5-story apartment building (the currently proposed project was revised to reduce the number of residential units from 29 to 27). The project also includes moving a historic house from the project site and relocating it to another location in the City. The proposed project would be located on two adjacent lots at 1128 and 1132 Douglas Avenue. Thc historic house would be moved from 1128 Douglas Avenue to 524 Oak Grove Avenue. The existing house at the Oak Grove Avenue location would be demolished to accommodate the historic house. The proposed project sites are in the City of Burlingame in San Mateo County. The applicant revised the project in response to comments on the Draft EIR as follows: • Number of units reduced from 29 to 27 � - 1-bedroom units reduced from 18 to 14 - 2-bedroom units increased from 7 to 9 � - Studio units (3) and 3-bedroom units (1) remained the same. • The reduction in the total number of units and change in unit type reduced the overall parking requirement from 34 to 33 parking spaces (see table below). � • Although an area for on-site deliveries is not required for apartment buildings and there is no guest parking required on-site for properties located within the Downtown Specific Plan area, the extra parking space located within the at-grade . parking area at the rear of the site has been designated as a guest/delivery parking space. • The fifth floor along the front fa�ade has been stepped back 10 feet. This area has [ been converted to balconies for Units 502 and 503). � Parking Spaces for Proposed and Revised Project � Units and Parking Spaces � 3 studio units x 1= 3 3 studio units x 1- 3 18, 1-bdr units x 1= 18 14, 1-bdr units x 1= 14 7, 2-bdr units x 1.5 = 10.5 9, 2-bdr units x 1.5 = 13.5 1,3bdrunitx2=2 1,3bdrunitx2=2 Total = 34 spaces Total = 33 spaces Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 1 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Draft EIR considered the proposed project and alternative projects that would reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts. The Draft EIR was circulated to affected public agencies and interested parties for a 45-day review period from September 6, 2016 to October 20, 2016. Comments on the Draft EIR were to be submitted in writing by no later than Thursday, October 20, 2016.In conformance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15151, EIRs should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to decide on the project that considers environmental consequences. T`he Final EIR is required to examine mitigation measures and alternatives to the project intended to reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. 1.3 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This document, together with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR for the Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project in the City of Burlingame. Under CEQA, the Lead Agency (City of Burlingame) is required, after completion of a Draft EIR, to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the proposed project, and to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. The City of Burlingame, as the Lead Agency, is then required to respond to significant environmental issues raised in the review and consultation process, as described in CEQA Section 15132. The Final EIR is used by the City and other Responsible Agencies in making decisions regarding the project. The CEQA Guidelines require that, while the information in the Final EIR does not control the agency's ultimate discretion of the project, the agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the Draft EIR by making written findings for each of those effects. Per the State Public Resources Code (Section 21081), no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified, which identifies one ar mare significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or mare of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: —(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. —(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that otheragency. —(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities of Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 12 1 INTRODUCTION highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. � (b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, � technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. This project would not result in significant effects on the environment after mitigation measures are implemented. All documents referenced in this Final EIR are available for public review at the Burlingame City Hall at 501 Primrose Road in the City of Burlingame during front counter and phone hours, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to Noon, and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (closed on Wednesday afternoons). The Final EIR will also be available for review on the City's website, www.burlingame.org, and at the Burlingame Public Library at 480 Primrose Road in the City of Burlingame. In accordance with the CEQA guidelines, the Final EIR will be made available to the public and commenting agencies a minimum of ten days prior to the EIR certification hearing. 1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION This document is organized as follows: • Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter describes the proposed project, the � environmental review process, and the purpose of the Final EIR. The agencies and individuals who received the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR and the � agencies and individuals that commented on the Draft EIR are included in this chapter. � • Chapter 2: Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR. This chapter contains copies of comments received during the public review period and responses to those comments. Each comment letter is coded with the initials of the commenter or agency/organization acronym. Each comment is bracketed in the margin of the � letter and assigned a secondary, comment-specific number. For example, the first comment in the letter from Caltrans is CT-1. Each comment letter is followed by a (� response corresponding to the bracketed comment. � • Chapter 3: Revisions to the Text of the Draft EIR. This chapter presents changes to the Draft EIR that reflect text changes initiated by City staff after publication of � the Draft EIR and in response to comments to clarify, update, or correct the Draft EIR text. The text changes have not resulted in significant new information with r respect to the proposed project, including any new potentially significant Lenvironmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, or in any new mitigation measures. Corrections to the text and tables of the Draft EIR ' are contained in this chapter. Underlined text represents language that has been added to the Draft EIR; text with c'��'_-^�'��a'� has been deleted from the Draft EIR. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential � Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 1-3 1 INTRODUCTION • Chapter 4: References. This chapter lists the references cited in this document. 1.5 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS WHO RECEIVED THE DRAFT EIR OR NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY Table 1.5-1 includes the agencies and organizations that received the NOA for the proposed project from the City of Burlingame. The NOA was also mailed to the residences within a 300- foot radius of the proposed project. The mailing list for the NOA is included in Appendix A. Table 1.5-1 Agencies and Organizations that Received the NOA . - . •.: - . . • .. . . . . . . - Bay Area Air 9uality Management District (BAAQMD) Robert Bartley, Air Quality Engineering Manager Technical Services Burlingame School District Maggie Maclsaac, Superintendent City of Milibrae Tonya Ward, Community Development Director City of San Mateo Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Samtrans San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board San Mateo County _ San Mateo County Airport Land Use Committee San Mateo Union High School District Town of Hillsborough Ron Munekawa, Chief of Planning Tom Zlatunich, Land Surveying & Engineering Support Jim Hartnett, Executive Director Corrine Goodrich, Manager of Strategic Development Bruce H. Wolfe, Executive Office Tom Madalena, C/CAG and Jim Eggemeyer, Director of Planning and Building Division Dave Carbone, C/CAG Dr. Kevin Skelly, Superintendent Elizabeth Cullinan, Director of Building and Planning 1.6 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR Table 1.5-1 provides a summary of the agencies, organizations, and individuals commenting on the Draft EIR. Table 1.6-1 also identifies the date the comment letter was received. Complete copies of all letters received are included before the responses to the comments. A public meeting was held during the circulation period of the Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Draft EIR. The meeting was held on October 11, 2016 with the City of Burlingame Planning Commission in Burlingame City Hall. The public was invited to provide comments on the Draft EIR during this meeting. Planning Commissioners were also Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 1 �4 1 INTRODUCTION l � i � � ' , ' r , � given the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. The verbal comments from this meeting on the Draft EIR were recorded in the Meeting Minutes. The Meeting Minutes are included in Section 2.5: Public Meeting Comments. Table 1.6-1 Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals that Commented on the Draft EIR State Agency California Department of Transportation -- Organizations HOA Board Individuals Anonymous resident of Burlingame _. _ _ _ _ .. Clarke So Danielle Rienks Danielle Rienks Dion Heffran Gerald Weisl John Root ----_ _ _ _ _ _ Individuals and Public Commissioners at the Public Meeting CT HOA September 20, 2016 AN __ _____ ____ _ CS DRl DR2 DH GW JR PM Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 1 S October 1 l, 2016 October 18, 2016 October 14, 2016 October 10, 2016 October 12, 2016 September 7, 2016 October 14, 2016 October 14, 2016 October 1 1, 2016 1 INTRODUCTION � 1 ' , ' � This page is intentionally left blank. � ' r � � � � � �, Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR . February 2017 1� 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR � � 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.1 COMMON COMMENTS AND RESPONSES � Comments that raise questions regarding the adequacy of the EIR or analyses in the EIR require substantive responses. Comments that contain only opinions regarding the proposed project do " not require substantive responses in the Final EIR. Chapter 2 presents the comments received during the public review period and the City responses to the comments. Similar issues were raised in various comments; therefore, master responses addressing similar comments are included in Section 2.1. For each master response, the corresponding comment numbers are � listed at the beginning of the response. � Section 2.2 includes a copy of the Meeting Minutes for the public hearing held on October 11, 2016 to discuss the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments made at the hearing. r Furthermore, Sections 2.3 through 2.11 include a copy of and responses to each letter received during the public review period regarding the Draft EIR. Each comment letter is reproduced in its entirety, in the same order as listed in Table 1.5-1. Each letter is followed immediately by responses to its comments. The comment number and text of the individual comment are � presented before each response for ease of reference. � 2.1.1 Master Response 1- Impacts to Traffic and Parking Master Response 1 is in response to comments PM-1, PM-4, PM-5, PM-6.7, PM-6.22, CS-3, DRl- r 10, DR2-2, DH-1, GW-1, GW-3, and JR-3. These comments focus on the following topics: � • Potential impacts to traffic from the increased number of residents of the proposed project • Effects to street parking • Insufficient parking for the residents of the proposed building • Lack of guest parking The proposed project would be subject to the City of Burlingame R-4 District Regulations, Off- Street Parking Regulations, and Design Standards for Residential Areas of the Downtown Specific Plan. A focused transportation and parking analysis was conducted for the proposed � project; the traffic and parking analysis is included in the Draft EIR in Appendix H. 'The analysis of project parking demand was based on City parking code requirements and parking studies � performed for other multi-family residential units. 2.1.1.1 Traffic r Impact Transporation-1 identifies the potential traffic impacts from the increased use of vehicles in the neighborhood. Table 3.13-5 on page 3.13-12 identifies the additional number of daily trips that would be generated by the proposed project. This analysis is considered conservative Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 t�� 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR because it was based on a larger number of units than are currently proposed (29 rather than 27) and includes the trips for all residents and does not give credit for the estimated 10-15 percent of residents who are likely to use public transit such as Caltrain (the train station is approximately two blocks from the proposed project). The proposed project development is designed to allow residents to take full advantage of public transit opportunities and City code requirements for the Downtown areas reflect this trend. Residents living in downtown areas typically walk to many destinations. Since the publication of the Draft EIR, the number of residential units included in the proposed project was reduced from 29 to 27, thereby reducing the impact on traffic below the level analyzed in the Draft EIR. The traffic impact on Page 3.13-12 is revised as follows: "The proposed project at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue would consist of 27 � apartment units. Based on ITE daily and peak hour trip generation for multi-family (apartment) units, the project would be expected to generate 180 �93 daily trips with 14 �--5 AM peak hour trips and 17 � PM peak hour trips as shown in Table 3.13-54. The net increase in proposed project trips would represent the difference between existing residential uses on-site and proposed project trip generation. As shown in Table 3.13-5, this net increase in site vehicle trips would amount to 134 � daily trips with 10 � AM peak hour trips (3 in, 7� out) and 12 �-3 PM peak hour trips (8 � in, 4 out) for proposed project uses." Table 2.1-1 Proposed and Net New Project Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue Residential Project Land Use Category Apartment Unit Rate du 6.65 Total In % Out % 0.51 20 80 Total In % Out °k 0.62 65 35 Project Uses Trips Total In Out Total In Out Apartment 27�-9 180� 14�5 3 1 1� 17� 11 � 6 Proposed ProjectTrips 180�93 1435 3 11� 17� 11� 6 Existing Project Trips (46) (4) (0) (4) (5) (3) (2) Net New Project Trips 1341-4� 10� 3 7� 12�3 8� 4 Source: Institute of Transporfation Fngineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 9" Edition, Single-Family Detached Housin�� (#210) and Aparfment (#t 220), 2012. � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 22 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR r L � � � The conclusion in the traffic analysis (Omni Means 2015) states: "The proposed Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Apartment project (29 units) would not significantly affect traffic flows in the project study area. Allowing for vehicle trips from existing residential development currently on-site, the proposed project would be expected to generate 147 net new daily trips with 11 net new a.m. peak hour trips and 13 net new PM peak hour trips. Proposed project development would be consistent with land use assumptions contained within the City of Burlingame's Downtown Specific Plan that assumed 1,232 residential units could be constructed within the Downtown area." It is reasonable to assume that the net increase in residential uses (21 units) from the proposed project has been included in the land use projections for the Downtown Specific Plan. 'The reduction in the number of units from 29 units to 27 units would reduce the traffic impact from 147 new daily trips analyzed in the Draft EIR to 134 new daily trips. The traffic analysis in the Downtown Specific Plan found that the intersections within the vicinity of the proposed project would not be significantly affected by the development planned in the Downtown Specific Plan. The traffic impact would be consistent with City standards and would be less than significant. � 2.1.1.2 Parking Title 25, Chapter 25.70.032 of the City of Burlingame municipal code identifies the parking requirements for duplexes, apartments, hotels, and condominiums located within the Downtown Specific plan area. Page 3.13-15 of the Draft EIR show that the 34 parking spaces � were included in the project consistent with the requirements identified in the municipal code. The number of parking spaces that are included in the proposed project has been reduced to 33 rto reflect the reduction in the number of units, as shown in Table 2.1-1 below. The project would � provide sufficient parking for the residents of the proposed building. � Table 2.1-2 Proposed Project Residential Units and City Parking Space Requirements Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Total 3 14� 9� 1 27� 1 1.5 � 3 14� 13.5a-9� 2 32,5=33 �=�4 parking spaces - ___ ____ ( 2.1.1.3 Guest Parking � Several comments raised concerns that off-street parking would be affected by guests that r would visit residents of the proposed building. Several of the commenters were concerned that the proposed project does not include guest parking in the design of the proposed project and recommended certain design elements to be incorporated into the project, such as a turnaround Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR . February 2017 2-3 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR for parking, a white zone for short-term parking, and obtaining a permit from Caltrain to use the parking adjacent to the Caltrain tracks. The Downtown Specific Plan does not require guest parking, as stated on page 3.3-16 of the Draft EIR and the project complies with Title 25, Chapter 25.70.032 of the City of Burlingame municipal code, as described above in Section 21.1.2. The Draft EIR does however, identify the potential impacts from guest parking (page 3.3-15). The Draft EIR indicates that there would be a demand for 4-5 parking spaces for guests, after considering that the proximity to the Caltrain station parking lot would reduce the overall demand for parking. Guest parking is available in the neighborhood, at the Caltrain station (one block away at the end of Douglas Avenue), and at public parking lots downtown. The conclusion in the parking analysis was that guest parking would not result in a significant impact. Since the public meeting on October 11, 2016, the project has been revised to reduce the number of residential units from 29 to 27. This includes reducing the number of 1-bedroom units from 18 to 14 and increasing the number of 2-bedroom units from 7 to 9; the number of studio units (3) and 3-bedroom units (1) remained the same. Based on the number of bedrooms per unit proposed for this project, the Zoning Code requires a total of 33 off-street parking spaces for the residents of the units (1 space for each studio and one-bedroom unit, 1.5 spaces for each two- bedroom unit and 2 spaces for each unit containing three or more bedrooms). The project includes 12 at-grade parking spaces at the rear of the lot and 22 below-grade parking spaces in an underground garage, for a total of 34 off-street parking spaces. Although an area for on-site deliveries is not required for apartment buildings and there is no guest parking required on-site for properties located within the Downtown Specific Plan area, one parking space located within the at-grade parking area at the rear of the site has been designated as a guest/delivery parking space. 2.1.1.4 Additional Project Features Several commenters suggested that the project should include additional features, such as more parking, guest parking, and a turn-around or circular driveway. The parking effect is less than significant and does not merit mitigation under CEQA. The Planning Commission, as the agency responsible for reviewing the design of the project, will determine if additional features should to be incorporated into the design of the project, if the project is approved. The additional features would further reduce less than significant traffic effects and may be added as conditions of approval. 2.1.2 Master Response 2- Impacts from Deliveries and ITE Standards Master Response 2 responds to comments PM-1, PM-4, PM-5, PM-6.7, PM-6.19, and JR-4. T'hese comments focus on the potential impacts to traffic and parking from the increased number of deliveries to residents at the proposed project. Commenters also asked about the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) data and the ITE Standards used to calculate the impact in the Draft EIR. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residentlal Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 z �a 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.1.2.1 Deliveries and ITE Standards r Several comments raised concern about the potential traffic and parking impacts from the I additional delivery truck trips that would result from the proposed project. Several commenters � were also concerned that the standard used to determine the impact from delivery trucks was r outdated. The Draft EIR explains that the delivery trips that would be generated by the proposed project are incorporated into the overall calculation for total project trips. The proposed project trip generation was calculated by using the latest standards established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE collects vehicle trip data within different land � uses. ITE published their latest Trip Generation Manual (9th edition) in 2012, which indicated that an apartment generates approximately 6.65 trips per dwelling unit (see Table 3.13-1 on � page 3.13-4). The ITE standards provide the most recent field-verified information and is routinely used by transportation planners and engineers. The ITE Standards are 4 years old and r although on-line sales may have increased in the last 4 years, there is no available data that shows that the number of deliveries has increased substantially in that period. It is reasonable and customary to use the most recently available ITE standards. Furthermore, many of the comments noted that delivery trucks are frequently on Douglas Avenue delivering packages. It ` is likely that packages going to the proposed building would be on delivery trucks that had already planned trips to deliver packages to other residences on Douglas Avenue. The r proposed project would, therefore, not substantially increase the number of delivery truck trips. 2.1.2.2 Additional Project Features Several comments suggested that certain design elements be incorporated into the project to L minimize the traffic and parking impacts from truck deliveries, including a turnaround design or a white zone for short-term parking. The Focused Transportation and Parking Analysis � (Omni Means 2015) report for this project notes that the City of Burlingame may want to consider installing a white curb or restrictive yellow space along a portion of the frontage of the � proposed project to allow for the loading or unloading of passengers, freight, mail, or deliveries (page 8 of Appendix H of the Draft EIR). As previously noted, one parking space located within the at-grade parking area at the rear of the site has been designated as a guest/delivery parking space. Although this space would not be accessible by a large delivery truck, it would be , available for smaller trucks/vehicles providing services to the apartment building, such as building/site maintenance or repairs. T`he Department of Public Works noted that installation of r a white curb or yellow restricted space is not possible since it would eliminate several on-street � parking spaces and provides no guarantee that a delivery vehicle would use the designated space rather than double-park along the street. The Planning Commission is the agency f responsible for reviewing the design of the project and will determine if a turnaround design � would be required in response to public comment. 2.1.3 Master Response 3- Height of the Proposed Project Master Response 3 responds to comments PM-4, PM-6.3, HOA-1, CS-1, DR1-9, DIZ2-1, DR2-11, GW-3, JR-2. These comments focus on the potential impacts to the visual quality of the neighborhood caused by the height of the proposed project. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 25 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR The proposed height of the building (60 feet) requires that the applicant obtain a conditional use permit, but is below the City's conditionally allowable height of 75 feet. The project has been revised so that the fifth floor is stepped back 10 feet from the rest of the building along the front fa�ade. Impact Aesthetics-3 (pages 3.1-14 to 3.1-17 of the Draft EIR) describes how the proposed project, including the height, could potentially degrade the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings. The Draft EIR presents an analysis of the potential visual quality impacts related to the height of the building and identifies the inconsistencies with any goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions of the City of Burlingame that relate to height of buildings (see Table 3.1-2 on pages 3.1-15 to 3.1-17). The goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions that the proposed project would potentially conflict with due to the height of the proposed project are shown in Table 3.1-2 of the Draft EIR and in Table 2.1-2 below. Table 2.1-2 shows the additional information that has been added to clarify how the proposed project is inconsistent with City policies regarding the height of buildings. Table 2.1-3 Inconsistencies with City of Burlingame Plans and Policies Due to the Height of the Proposed Project. General Plan Community Development Goal II: To maintain and enhance the identity of the City and encourage a maximum sense of identification by residents with the City. _ _ __ __ c, Establish a paitern of dominance and subordination in Potentially Inconsistent. The height important visual features; create harmony with diversity. and bulk of the structure as proposed dominate the site, and adds one multistory, dominant type of structure on the street and removes two subordinate, two-story single-family structures. The proiect, consistinca of a four-story fa�ade with a stepped back fiffh story, contributes a dominant structure and removes two subordinate structures but still allows the street to retain the diverse qaitern as there are two-, three-, and four- story structures on the street. Downtown Specific Plan Goal S-1: Improve the streetscape, particularly at the pedestrian scale. In�^n�•�+�^+• Consistent, Ground level treatment �i## consistina of a wide entrance walks, benches, and water features �re� add diversity to existing street experience and improves the streetscape at the pedestrian scale. Height of building �ve+�l� dominates a sense of pedestrian scale, but it is set back 18 to 31 feet from the front property line. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 26 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR � � � � � � L ' ' ' � 5.3.1. Architectural Diversity Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural styles. __ _.._ __ _ _ _ _ _ Maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style used. 5.3.2.1 Architectural Compatibility _ _ _ Massing and street facades shall be designed to create a residential scale. Partiallv Inconsistent. �e Althou ,qh the existing building is approximately 20-25 feet taller than any other building in the block, the proposed proiect is consistent with the adjacent modern style buildina and with other existing buildings on the block characterized y simple massina, flat walls and repetitive fenestration. Along the front fa�ade, the top floor is set back 10 feet from the rest of the building, providing a sense of a four-story building when viewed from nearby locations. Partiallv Inconsistent. At a height of 57 feet, plus rooffop appurtenances and with repetitive design elements, the building exceeds a human scale as seen from the immediate neighborhood. However, human- scale elements, such as a front entry element, a pedestrian walk, water feature and benches are provided at street level, and individual balconies are provided on the upper floors. Partiallv Inconsistent. Continuous repetition of elements on the upper stories is not consistent with enhancing visual interest and creating a sense of human scale, however this desiqn element exists on multifamilv residential buildinas on this block, The proposed project provides human- scale elements at the street level, such as a front entry element, a pedestrian walk, water feature, and benches, and on the upper levels individual balconies provide residential scale and character. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 r7 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Articulation, setbacks, and materials should minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest. 5.4.1.1 Massing and Scale Transitions: Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to lower can be done through different building sizes or massing treatments that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses. Massing and orientation of new buildings should respect the massing of neighboring structures by varying the massing within a project, stepping back upper stories, reducing mass by composition of solids and voids, and varying sizes of elements to transition to smaller scale buildings. 5.4.1.1 Privacy: Privacy of neighboring structures should be maintained with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties, minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties, and limiting sun and shade impacts on abutting properties. Partially Inconsistent, �e Although the design of the upper stories is repetitive of the lower levels and ea-a-�le the buildina is viewed as a sinale large mass, articulation is provided by way of usina a different material on the ground level (horizontal wood sidinq� incorporating balconies throuqhout the buildinq, horizontal sun shades above windows, projectina eaves, seitinq back the front riqht corner of the building, and articulatinq the walls alonq the front and leff sides of the buildinq. Partially Inconsistent. Massing has only moderate composition of solids and voids to transition to smaller scale buildings. Stepping back the upper floor along the front of the building varies the massing and helps to transition to smaller scale buildings. Inconsistent. Windows and upper floor balconies not reflective of minimizing sight lines into surrounding neighboring properties. The proposed 5-story building would shade an approximately 80 percent greater area than existing structures on the properties. Steppinca back floors would reduce views to neiqhborinq properties and reduce shading T'he Draft EIR identifies several inconsistencies with plans and policies and a potential significant impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, including the impact from the height of the building. Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-1 is proposed to reduce the impact to less than significant. MM AES-1 requires the applicant to submit the revised plans to the Planning Commission for design review. As described in MM AES-1 (page 3.1-13 of the Draft EIR) the Planning Commission is the agency responsible for reviewing the design of the project and its compatibility with the City of Burlingame's guidelines for a residential building in the Downtown Specific Plan R-4 Base District. The Planning Commission will be the agency that determines if the height of the building is compatible with the City of Burlingame's guidelines. The Draft EIR presents an analysis of two Alternatives with a reduced height. Section 4: Alternatives describes Alternative 1, which reduces the height of the building from five stories to four stories with no changes in density and Alternative 3, which reduces the height of the building from five stories to four stories and reduces the density of the building. The City of Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR . February 2017 2-8 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Burlingame will decide whether to approve the proposed project or one of the Alternatives (including the no project alternative) after certification of the Final EIR. 2.1.4 Master Response 4- Impacts to Trees r Master Response 4 responds to comments PM-4, AN-5, AN-15, DR1-4, DRl-14, DR2-8, and JR-9. These comments focus on the potential for additional impacts from damaging trees at the Douglas Avenue Project Site, such that the trees would need to be removed. Several of the comments raised a specific concern about the potential damage that could occur to the historic � redwood tree located on the Douglas Avenue project site and the impact from removing the tree because of the damage. The potential impact to protected trees that are not planned for removal is analyzed on pages 3.3-18 and 3.3-19. MM BIO-2 requires that the applicant implement series of ineasures to avoid and minimize impacts to protected trees during construction. As summarized on page 3.3-19, MM BIO-2 requires measures to protect trees, including: • Placing fencing around protected trees, • Taking immediate remedial action if a protected tree is damaged, • Restricting stockpiling of soils around trees, and • Restricting attaching signs, wires, or other devices to trees. T`hese measures are consistent with the tree protection guidelines established in the City of Burlingame Ordinance (Chapter 11.06.050). The potential impact to the redwood tree would be from damaging the roots of the tree during construction. The Draft EIR addresses the concern about potential impacts to redwood tree roots on pages 3.3-19 and 3.3-20 of the Draft EIR. MM BIO-2 includes specific measures to ensure that the redwood tree roots are protected. Pages 3.3-21 and 3.3-22 identifies that prior to any excavation activities, the Project Arborist will evaluate significant roots and make recommendations to protect the roots and preserve the health of the redwood tree. The evaluation and recommendations would be submitted to the City of Burlingame prior to excavation to allow the City arborist to determine whether the measures are adequate. MM BIO-2 also includes measures for the actions that would be taken if roots smaller than 2-inches and larger than 2-inches are discovered during construction: "When roots that are 2 inches or smaller are encountered during excavation, the wall of the trench next to the tree shall be hand trimmed, making clear cuts through the roots. Damaged, torn, and cut roots shall be given a clean cut to remove ragged edges. Trenches will be filled within 24 hours and when that is not possible the side of the trench next to the tree shall be shaded with four layers of dampened, untreated, and wetted burlap. When roots that are 2 inches or greater are encountered during excavation, the Project Arborist shall be notified and they will determine whether roots may be cut as mentioned above or whether they shall be excavated by hand or with compressed air under the roots. Roots 2-inches or larger will be protected with dampened burlap." Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 L y 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR A Project Arborist will implement MM BIO-2 to ensure that the measures are enforced and properly implemented. MM BIO-2 has been approved by the City Arborist. MM BIO-2 would ensure that the impacts to trees, including impacts to the redwood tree, would be less than significant. 2.2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS The following text reflects comments stated or questions that were raised at the public hearing for the Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Draft EIR held on October 11, 2016. These comments were not transcribed verbatim, but rather they provide a representation of those comments and questions received. The following text also includes responses to those comments. � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 ,. � ! 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR � l I � �� BURLINGAME ..�q � +� City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:00 PM Councll Chambers a. 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue and 524 Oak Grove Avenue — Public comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report for a new five-story, 29-unit residential apartment building. The project includes moving the house at 1128 Douglas Avenue to the site at 524 Oak Grove Avenue and additions to the first and second floors (the existing house at 524 Oak Grove Avenue would be demolished). (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Jianguang Zhang, property owner) (161 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones was recused, as he is the project architect. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Laurie Header, Panorama Environmental, Inc. (environmental consultant for the EIR), provided an overview of the environmental review process. Questions o( staff or consultant: l C > How does one determine the threshold of significance? (Header: in the absence of the City-specific thresholds, the thresholds identified in the State's CEQA Guidelines Appendix G were used.) > How were the alternatives /ormulated; including the no-project alternative? (Header. usually comes out of the impact analysis. They are designed to respond to and mitigate fhe potential impacts.) > Define "somewhat" historic trees. (Header: they are heritage trees designated by the Crry, and planted by the Murphy family.) /s the level of "historic" tree above the level o( protected" tree? (Header: no, it is the same) > Is there any alterate to using data from ITE? (Header: ITE is the standard that is used in all traffic analyses because there isnY anything else comparable.) > What constitutes "merits" of the project considering that aesthetics of the projects could also be considered merits of the project? (Header: aesthetics is subjective and could fall into both categories. However individual opinions such as "I like the project" speaks more to the ments than the environmental review, and is not what the purpose of this meeting is about.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Commission questions/comments: 0 � � John Root, 1133 Douglas Avenue: > Lives at 1133 Douglas across /rom the project site: has been there for 4 years. > 39-year resident, and was a member of the of the Downtown Specific Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. N!�� t > Project is not in the spirit of the Downtown Specific Plan. > Current buildings include a 3-story condo and 4-story building with the top Noor stepped back so it's not visible from the street. > Favors Alternative 3. > Project will increase street parking. Clty ol8uA7ng�me Page 1 Printed on fOR6R016 Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2-l� 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Planning Commisslon Meeting Minutes October 11, 2016 > Project does not fit in with the charm of the existing residential neighborhood. > Project does not have guest parking, there is not enough guest parking in the area as is, adding 29 p, t t units will only increase the problem. �„„� > The condo building has a circular dnveway thaf has ioom for a couple of cars which makes a big difference for accommodating guests. Could the project do something similar? > What about a white zone for short-term parking? > Landscaping could soRen the driveway. > ITE Standards are outdated > Seven people will be ordering on-line resulting in more deliveries Linda Taylor. 1133 Douglas Avenue: > Resident at 1133 Douglas for 10 years. > Family has been in Burlingame for years. > Aesthetics of the building is setting a low bar, the design is ordinary, windows. laFade and matena/s r!�t � are nondescript. > Downtown Specific Plan states thaf wall and window patterns should be well-propoRioned: windows should be generally inset to create shade and shadow. > Project is inconsistent with design guidelines, window pattern not varied. aluminum windows and /lush rather than wood and inset. > The building in not richly detailed with qualiry materials. > Supports Alternative 3. John Taylor. 1133 Douglas Avenue: > Asked clarifying questions re' whether another EIR would be needed if an altemative is selected; and how mitigation measures would be enforced. (Gardine�: [he alternatives have 6een analyzed in the EIR and a new EIR would not be needed unless a totally new alternative with greater impacts is P�f-3 presented; and mitigation measures would be included as Conditions of Approval for the project.) > The EIR was a well-done document, well-written, easy to read and follow, and incredibly thorough EIR discussion on bulk and mass was well done. > Slight preference for Alternative 2. The insets give the opportunity for decks with the stepped back floors; breaks up the flat facade. Danielle Rienks, 1126 Douglas, spoke on this item: > Has lived at 1126 Douglas for 17 years next door to fhe project site. > The big Redwood tree has shallow roots and will not survive once construction digging starts, maybe fhe Oak tree trees wifl help to stabilize the Redwood. > Tra(fic will increase, 29 units is about 67 people, but she expects there will be more than that since rents are so high. P�� > Everyone drives, maybe 12% will take public transport. > Have a shared driveway that will now have to be shared with 67 people. > Delivery trucks about 1 D-12 times per week. > Traffic is irustrating for neighborhood > The street is a community, everyone is social > Her house will be a black hole > The shadow study shows that 1 will have sunlight from 12 to 2 p.m. when she is not at home Larry Stevenson, 1124 Douglas: > A detailed shadow analysis needs to be done. May have missed it in the document. > Parking is a problem - count 2 cars per couple. Y1[-5 > Concern with guest parking. > Deliveries are up to 4 deliveries per day. > With 29 units having 1 delivery per day it will be a lot of traffic. Ciry o/BuAingame Page 2 Pilnted on f0/Y6/3016 Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 � I� 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 11, 2016 r Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: P!�t-t, i.> Have conshuction hours changed? (Kane: will staR an hour later, and no construction on Sundays and government holidays.) Needs to update the references in the document. '.> Table 3.1-2 Aesthetics Table Goal D-3 - need background data to confirm consistency with "small-town"scale. Other goals need background data as well. i.> How is height consistent? q.> Is parking consistent with the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan? s> Are the parking requirements in the Downtown Specific Plan set in stone, can they be looked at in the future? (Gardiner: parking can be revisited with the Zoning Ordinance Update, but the project is subject to current policy.) �> Tra(fic Ta61es 3.13-1 and 3.13-2 - it would be better to have both tables use the same base for comparison - either in ratios or in fips. -> Parking - should include some sort of tumaround in the design to allow for deliveries or guest parking. x> Address how the new construction hours will affect const�uction duration. y> Aesthetics indicates the view from Bellevue Avenue will be 30 seconds of driving. what is the average time of visibility if someone were walking or biking? to.> Aesthetics cumulative impact is less than significant, what are the assumptions? <<> Tree Study - was it peer reviewed by the City arborrst7 (Hurin: yes, he peer-reviewed the study.) iz> Do the plans call for trees in ground vs. planter boxes? Trees in the ground do better. �;> Old data was used in EIR. ��> Displacement of residents - Page 3.11-5 refers to 5.1% vacancy rate, there is more recent data. How was the rate established? Is it considering comparable rents? i;> Table 3.12-1 school enrollment rates and capacities - can't we qet more recent data than 2014- 2015? �e.> There is no service ratio goal. Do most cities have that9 What is the service ratio for parks? i%.> Cumulative High School Impacts - states that if Burlingame High School cannot accommodate the increase in sfudents the High School Distnct will send students to other high schools. What is the impact on other high schools? What is fhe impact if these students in Burlingame now have to drive fo school instead of being able to walk to school? tr.> Transportation references are old - References 2011 and 2009. �v> ITE numbers are outdated. ?��.> What is the parking rate for highnse buildings (over 5 floors)? zi> Should have parking surveys in the local county. z» Needs guest parking. ?;> Amazon went irom a.524 billion business in 2009 to 5120 6illion. That is a 392% increase - how does that translate to the increase in deliveries locally? Probably not necessarily a direct correlation to the deliveries. z-�> References to Ciry of San Francisco for per capita water use - should use Burlingame data zs> What is current data on water usage, during drought years. wet years? za.> Given the allocation o( water for all these projects, will the City need to increase its allocation and cause rates to go up? z? Jobs data is old, such as the percentage of people working in Ciry. za.> Page 4-8, discrepancy in number of new residents 41 vs. 42. z�> Comments on aesthetics will be discussed during design review for the project. �� > Page 3.13-17 clarify why the number of trips would be less than significant LOS at the intersections. a i> Traffic on streets - clanfy construction vs. operation. Comments may be submitted up to October 20th. C/ry oI BurNngame Page 3 Pr/nted on f0/28/2016 � � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2-13 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.2.1 Response PM-1 The comments that current buildings in the area include a 3-story condominium and 4-story building with the top floor stepped back so it is not visible from the street and that the commenter favors Alternative 3 are noted. See Master Response 1 for the response to similar comments on the potential impacts to parking from the proposed project. See Master Response 2 for the response to similar comments on the potential traffic and parking impacts from deliveries related to the proposed project and the ITE standards. The comment that the proposed project does not fit in with the charm of the existing residential neighbarhood is noted. MM AES-1 provides for the Planning Commission to consider design modifications to improve the compatibility of the structure with the other structures in the neighborhood. Impact Aesthetics-3 on pages 3.1-14 to 3.1-17 addresses the potential impact related to the project not fitting with the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood and thereby not fitting "with the charm of the existing residential neighborhood." This analysis was conducted by identifying the potential inconsistencies with design standards established by City of Burlingame policies, goals, and objectives (see Table 3.1-2). The final decision about the design of the proposed project will be made by the Planning Commission. For the response to similar comments about how the height of the proposed project fits with the existing neighborhood, see Master Response 3. Regarding the comment that landscaping could soften the driveway, landscaping is included as a part of the proposed project and would soften the driveway appearance. 2.2.2 Response PM-2 The comment that Alternative 3 is supported is noted. The comments that the proposed project is inconsistent with design guidelines established in the Downtown Specific I'lan based on the following elements is noted: • Window pattern is not varied • Aluminum, flush windows are used instead of wood and inset • The design is ordinary • The windows, fa�ade, and materials are nondescript • The building is not richly detailed with quality material The decision on the design of the project will be made by the Planning Commission. 2.2.3 Response PM-3 The alternatives have been analyzed in the EIR and a new EIR would not be needed unless a completely new alternative (with greater impacts) is presented. Mitigation measures would be induded as Conditions of Approval for the project or any alternative. The comment that Alternative 2 is preferred is noted. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 � o _i 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.2.4 Response PM-4 Comments PM-4 are addressed in Master Responses, above: • See Master Response 4 for the response to similar comments on the potential impact to the redwood tree on the Douglas Avenue project site; • See Master Response 1 for discussion of the potential impacts to traffic from the proposed project; and • See Master Response 2 for discussion of the potential traffic and parking impacts from deliveries to the proposed building. • The Shadow Study for the proposed project was provided as Appendix B of the Draft EIR and considers all the existing buildings surrounding the Douglas Avenue project site. • The Draft EIR considers two Alternatives with a reduced height (see Master Response 3). 2.2.5 Response PM-5 A detailed shadow analysis was prepared for the project and was included in the Draft EIR as Appendix B. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of the potential impacts to parking from the proposed project. See Master Response 2 for a discussion of the potential traffic and parking impacts from deliveries from the proposed project 2.2.6 Response PM-6 Several comments were made by the Planning Commissioners. Each individual comment was given a number as shown in the Meeting Minutes and each individual comment is responded to individually. 2.2.6.1 Response PM-6.1 The allowable construction hours within residential areas in the City of Burlingame have been changed per Ordinance No. 1930 (Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Section 18.07.110 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Restrict Construction Hours), which became effective on October 19, 2016. The change includes a construction start time of 8:00 a.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and City-recognized holidays. The project will be subject to this change. The proposed project will be required to comply with this new ordinance. 2.2.6.2 Response PM-6.2 The commenter requested additional rationale for the conclusions for Goal D-3 and other goals in Table 3.1-2 in the Aesthetics section of the Draft EIR. Additional information is added to the table as shown below. ' � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 7 '� 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Table 3.1-2 General Plan Proposed Project Consistency with City of Burlingame Plans and Policies Community Development Goal II: To maintain and enhance the identity of the City and encourage a maximum sense of identification by residents with the City. c. Establish a paitern of dominance and subordination in important visual features; create harmony with diversity. Potentially Inconsistent, The height and bulk of the structure as proposed dominate the site, and adds one multistory, dominant type of structure on the street and removes two subordinate, two-story single-family structures. The proiect, consisting of a four-story fa�ade with a stepped back fifth storv, contributes a dominant structure and removes two subordinate structures but still allows the street to retain the diverse pattern as there are two-, three-, and four- story structures on the street. d. Create distinctive visual qualities - a Burlingame image Partially Inconsistent. While the (analyze existing visual qualities and build on the best of these). structure has distinctive visual gualities such as horizontal wood sidinc�on the ground floor and some architectural fenestration, individual floor patterns are repeated above the second story. f, Use trees of appropriate size and character as a design framework to enhance a sense of identity. Downtown Specific Plan Goal S-1: Improve the streetscape, particularly at the pedestrian scale. Policy S-1.3: Streetscapes should reflect Burlingame's designation as a"tree city," Trees should be planted throughout the downtown as an integral part of the streetscape, and mature street trees should be preserved whenever possible. Consistent. Street trees will conform to City specifications. Ir�sea�s#e�� Consistent. Ground level treatment � consistinq of a wide entrance walks, benches, and water features �rre�l� add diversity to existing street experience and imqroves the streetscape at the pedestrian scale. Height of building �nre�l� dominates a sense of pedestrian scale, but it is set back 18 to 31 feet from the front proqertv line. Consistent. The existing trees will be protected and new trees will be planted. � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 � �.:, 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR ' r"1 Goal D-1: Protect and preserve historic character. Policy D-1.1: Ensure that new construction fits into the context and scale of the existing downtown. _ . __. Goal D-3: Preserve and enhance small-town scale with walkable, pedestrian-scaled, landscaped streets, __.__.._ _ __---- Policy D-3.2: Evaluate development in the Downtown Area that is proposed to be taller than surrounding structures (i.e., over 40 feet) for potential to create new shadows or shade on public and/or quasi-public open spaces and major pedestrian routes. 5.3.1. Architectural Diversity --_ _ _ Design buildings to maintain general compatibility with the neighborhood. Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural styles. Consistent, Height and bulk of building are similar to other existinq multifamilv structures on the street and the Downtown Specific Plan anticipates similar heights, up to a maximum of 75 feet. Along the front fa�ade, the top floor is set back 10 feet from the rest of the buildinq, qrovidinq a sense of a four-story buildinq when viewed from nearby locations, __ _ _ Consistent. Height of building may dominate a sense of pedestrian scale but will maintain the walkable, landscaped street. ----_ _.._ - — Consistent. Shadow study provided in Appendix B. Consistent. The existing neighborhood is generally composed of two- to four- story structures below 50 feet in height, but is generally compatible with the surrounding structures in mass and articulation. Alona the front fa�ade, the top floor is set back 10 feet from the rest of the buildinq, providing a sense of a four-story building when viewed from nearby locations. Partiallv Inconsistent, �#e Although the existing building is approximately 20-25 feet taller than any other building in the block, the proposed project is consistent with the adjacent modern style building and with other existinq buildinqs on the block characterized bv simple massina, flat walls and r�etitive fenestration. Along the front fa�ade, the top floor is set back 10 feet from the rest of the buildinca, qrovidinca a sense of a four-story buildina when viewed from nearby locations. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 �: 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style used, 5.3.2.1 Entrances: Primary pedestrian access to all ground-level uses should be from the sidewalk along the public street, Entrances should be clearly defined features of front facades. 5.3.2.1 Architectural Compatibility Massing and street facades shall be designed to create a residential scale, _ _ Articulation, setbacks, and materials should minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest Partiall Inconsistent. At a height of 57 feet, plus rooffop appurtenances and with repetitive design elements, the building exceeds a human scale as seen from the immediate neighborhood. However, human- scale elements, such as a front entry element, a pedestrian walk, water feature and benches are provided at street level, and individual balconies are provided on the upper floors. Consistent, The primary pedestrian access to the proposed buildin .cLis from a pedestrian walkway that connects to the Douglas Avenue sidewalk. The entryway is clearlv defined by the pedestrian walkway to the front door. __. Partiallv Inconsistent. Continuous repetition of elements on the upper stories is not consistent with enhancing visual interest and creating a sense of human scale, however this desian element exists on multifamilv residential buildinqs on this block. The proposed proiect provides human- scale elements at the street level, such as a front entry element, a pedestrian walk, water feature, and benches, and on the upper levels individual balconies provide residential scale and character, Partiallv Inconsistent, �#e Although the design of the upper stories is repetitive of the lower levels and ea-a�ir�gle the building is viewed as a single large mass, articulation is provided by wav of usina a different material on the qround level (horizontal wood sidinq), incorporating balconies throu�c h1 out the building, horizontal sun shades above windows, projecting eaves, setting back the front riqht corner of the buildina, and articulatina the walls alonq the front and leff sides of the buildina. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2'd 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR ��i 5.3.2.1 Architectural Design Consistency: Facades should include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass. All exposed sides of a building should be designed with the same level of care and integrity. Facades should have a variation of both positive space (massing) and negative space (plazas, inset doorways, and windows). __ _ _. 5.3.2.2 Ground Level Treatment: Residential development may have a finished floor elevation up to 5 feet above sidewalk level to provide more interior privacy for residents. Entry porches or stoops along the street are encouraged to bridge this change in elevation and connect these units to the sidewalk to minimize any physical separation from the street level. The street-level frontage should be visually interesting with frequent unit entrances and clear orientation to the street 5.3.4.2 Windows --- - ---- — _ Building walls should be accented by well-proportioned openings that provide relief, detail and variation on the facade. __ _ __ Windows should be inset generously from the building wall to create shade and shadow detail. _ Reflective glass is undesirable because of its tendency to create uncomfortable glare conditions and a visual barrier. Where residential uses are adjacent to each other, windows should be placed with regard to any open spaces or windows on neighboring buildings so as to protect the privacy of residents 5.3.4.3 Materials: Building materials should be richly detailed to provide visual interest. The use of materials that are reflected in the historic architecture present is encouraged. Metal siding and large expanses of stucco or wood siding are also to be avoided. Roofing materials and accenting features such as canopies, cornices, tile accents, etc, should also offer color variation. Residential building materials should be made of quality details such as wrought iron, wood framed windows, wood brackets and tile roofs. Consistent. A front entry element, a pedestrian walk, water feature and benches are provided at street level, and individual balconies are provided on the upper floors to provide human scale and to provide a variation of both positive and negative space. Consistent. The entrance to the proposed buildinq is off-set from the street by the pedestrian walkway� which provides privacv for residents, Landscape features and hardscape features, including a concrete wall and wooden planter/fence also provide privacv to residents, The �roposed buildinq is connected to the sidewalk by the pedestrian walkwav, which provides clear orientation to the street. The street-level fronta._qe is made visually interesting by the eedestrian walkway, water feature, and benches. _ __ _ Partially Inconsistent. Althouah �window patterns are not varied within facades, the proiect does provide varied window sizes and grid patterns that provide relief to buildinq walls. 1a�Consistent, Aluminum window systems �wi## are inset approximately four inches from the building walls. Consistent. The proposed buildina does not include reflective alass, - _ _.__ - _ _. Consistent. The building would be separated from the neighboring residences by driveways, walkways, and landscaping. Inconsistent. Large expanses of stucco and wood siding proposed. No wood framed windows, , The roof is flat roof and lacks accenting features such as canopies, cornices, or tile accents. However, stucco and wood sidinq, flat roofs and metal/aluminum windows, are qresent on existina multifamilv residential buildinas on this block, Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 5.4.1.1 Massing and Scale Transitions: Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to lower can be done through different building sizes or massing treatments that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses. Massing and orientation of new buildings should respect the massing of neighboring structures by varying the massing within a project, stepping back upper stories, reducing mass by composition of solids and voids, and varying sizes of elements to transition to smaller scale buildings, 5.4.1.1 Privacy: Privacy of neighboring structures should be maintained with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties, minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties, and limiting sun and shade impacts on abutting properties. Burlingame Urban Forest Master Plan Partiallv Inconsistent. Massing dee�ae# has only moderate composition of solids and voids €4eeF-ele�er�s to transition to smaller scale buildings. Stepping back the upper floors varies the massina and helps to transition to smaller scale buildincts. Inconsistent. Windows and upper floor balconies not reflective of minimizing sight lines into surrounding neighboring properties. The proposed 5-story building would shade an approximately 80 percent greater area than existing structures on the properties. Steppinq back floors would reduce views to neiahborina properfies and reduce shading_ Sycamore theme tree. Consistent. No sycamore trees would be removed from the Douqlas Avenue proiect site. Burlingame Zoning Regulations: Chapter 25.29 R-4 Residential District No building or structure shall be constructed in an R-4 district which exceeds six (6) stories or seventy-five (75) feet in height The maximum lot coverage for all buildings and structures, including balconies, stairs, roof overhangs exceeding twenty- four (24) inches, trellises and improvements which exceed thirty (30) inches in height, shall be fiffy (50) percent for interior lots and sixty (60) percent for corner lots. Consistent. The proposed buildin_q is 5 stories and 60 feet in heiqht and thus does not exceed the heiaht limits of b stories and 75 feet. Consistent, The proposed project lot is an interior lot and has a lot coveraae of 49.40 percent see pacae A 1.0 of the proposed project site plan). The proposed project does not exceed the maximum lot coveraqe of 50 percent. 2.2.6.3 Response PM-6.3 See Master Response 3 for an in-depth discussion about the potential inconsistencies with City of Burlingame policies, goals, and objectives from the height of the proposed project. 2.2.6.4 Response PM-6.4 The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan because the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies established in the Downtown Specific Plan. The pertinent parking policies for the proposed project and the rationale for the project's consistency with those goals and policies are described in Table 2.2-1. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR . February 2017 i_� 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR t � Table 2.2-1 Proposed Project's Consistency with Downtown Specific Plan Parking Goals and Policies Goal P-1: Explore creative parking solutions. Policy P-1.1: Encourage the use of "alternative" vehicle types with ample bicycle parking and free parking for electric cars. � _ _ _...._ Policy P-1.2: Devote less land for parking Downtown while ` accommodating increased demand by using the land more efficiently with decked or underground parking. Policy P-1.3: Conceal parking areas through the use of attractively designed above- or below-ground parking structures, Goal P-4: Re-examine Downtown parking requirements Policy P-4.1: Downtown parking requirements should promote more efficient use of land. For example, consider shared - parking, proximity to transit, and walking distance. _ C 0 1 1 �� 0 � � The proposed project is considered transit oriented development because it is near a Caltrain station. The proposed project's proximity to the Caltrain station encourages the use of public transportation. The proposed project design includes a below-ground parking structure. The downtown area is walkable from the proposed project. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 : rl 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.2.6.5 Response PM-6.5 The parking requirements in the Downtown Specific Plan can be revisited but the proposed project is subject to the current policies in the Downtown Specific Plan. 2.2.6.6 Response PM-6.6 The information in Table 3.13-1 identifies the assumptions that were made to calculate the numbers in Table 3.13-2. Table 3.13-1 identifies the typical trip rates (trips per dwelling unit) that are used to calculate the number of trips that would be generated for apartments and single-family homes. Table 3.13-2 identifies the trips that are estimated for the existing 4-unit apartment and 2-unit single-family home at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue. It is necessary that Tables 3.13-1 and 3.13-2 use different metrics (rate of trips and total trips) because they show two different pieces of information. 2.2.6.7 Response PM-6.7 See Master Response 1 and 2 regarding impacts to traffic and parking from deliveries or guest parking, including the consideration of a turnaround design. The project includes one space dedicated for deliveries or guest parking due to the reduction in the number of residential units. 2.2.6.8 Response PM-6.8 As described in Response PM-6.1, the permissible construction hours have been changed by Ordinance No. 1930 (Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Section 18.07.110 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Restrict Construction Hours). The Draft EIR limited the construction hours through MM Noise-4. The noise limits in MM Noise-4 are consistent with Ordinance No. 1930, except for the construction start time on weekdays; MM Noise-4 is amended to match the noise ordinance start time of 8 a.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. on Saturdays. The 1 hour later start would still allow for 8-hour construction days; therefore, the newly adopted construction hours will not impact the duration of the proposed project construction. The applicant has indicated that the revised hours would not change the construction duration. 2.2.6.9 Response PM-6.9 A person traveling in a vehicle at approximately 25 miles per hour (mph) would see the proposed project for approximately 30 seconds. An average bicyclist travels at approximately 10 mph; therefore, a bicyclist on Bellevue Avenue would be exposed to the proposed project for approximately 1 minute and 15 seconds. An average pedestrian walks at approximately 3 miles per hour; therefore, a pedestrian walking on Bellevue Avenue would be exposed to the proposed project for approximately 4 minutes and 10 seconds. 2.2.6.10 Response PM-6.10 The analysis of the cumulative aesthetic impacts on pages 3.1-19 and 3.1-20 identifies the assumptions made in determining that the cumulative aesthetic impact is less than significant. The cumulative aesthetic impact is considered less than significant because all new development projects are required to be consistent with the guidelines adopted in the Downtown Specific Plan. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 Z � ,: 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.2.6.11 Response PM-6.11 Yes, the Tree Study was peer reviewed by the City Arborist. Appendix D of the Draft EIR provides the City Arborist's comments on the Tree Study. 2.2.6.12 Response PM-6.12 The proposed project will plant trees in the ground, rather than in planters. 2.2.6.13 Response PM-6.13 See Response PM-6.14, PM-6.15, PM-6.18, PM-6.19, and PM-6.27 regarding the data that was used in the Draft EIR. 2.2.6.14 Response PM-6.14 Page 3.11-5 also includes the reference for the 5.1% vacancy rate. The 5.1 percent vacancy rate data was obtained from the California Department of Finance report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State for the years of 2011 to 2015 (California Department of Finance 2015). The 5.1 percent vacancy rate was calculated by finding the percentage of housing units that were vacant. The Report identified a total of 13,077 housing units, of which 12,409 were occupied and 668 were vacant in 2015 (668/13,077). The vacancy rate accounts for all housing units and therefore all rents. Data for 2016 was made available by the Department of Finance after the analysis for Population and Housing was calculated and was thus not included in the Draft EIR. The 2016 data shows that the City of Burlingame has a vacancy rate of 7.6 percent, with 13,114 total housing units, 12,115 of which are occupied and 999 were vacant (California Department of Finance 2016). The vacancy rate for 2016 is greater than the 2015 vacancy rate. This change would not change the analysis discussed in the Draft EIR. The larger vacancy rate shows that the City of Burlingame has sufficient housing to accommodate the 22 persons displaced by the proposed project. The vacancy rate was updated in the EIR to reflect the most recent data. Table 3.11-2 on page 3.11-2 of the Draft EIR has been changed as follows: Table 3.11-2 Housing Estimates and Projections . � i . . . _ . . . . . . . � � � � i i i,� _ _ ••_ '• _ San Mateo 257,837� 277,200 286,790 296,280 305,390 315,100 0.01% 4.9% County _ __ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Cityof 13,0273 13,620 14,230 14,890 15,520 16,170 0.05%- 7,6��.�-°6 Burlingame 0.8% Source: �ABAG 2009, zCalifornia Department of Finance 2016 �9-�3 and 3U.S, Census Bureau 2015 � r'1 Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 % L �, 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Page 3.11-5 of the EIR is changed as follows: The demolition activities and the movement of the historical home would result in the displacement of the current occupants, which are estimated to be 22 people (19 on Douglas Avenue and 3 on Oak Grove Avenue). There is existing housing in the City that could accommodate this small number of displaced persons. The City has a vacancy rate of 7_6 � percent, which is sufficient to accommodate persons displaced by the proposed project (California Department of Finance 2016 ��). T`he proposed project would ultimately create more housing through the construction of 27 apartments that could house up to 62 people. The proposed project would add 27 units in the City and would help the City fulfill its housing needs obligation of 863 units for the 2015 to 2023 planning period. The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. The impact would be less than significant. Page 3.11-5 of the EIR is changed as follows: Housing development projects in the City are in varying stages, and new housing is constructed as some older units are demolished. In the Downtown Specific Plan area, multi-family housing units are replacing single-family houses and thereby providing more housing units to meet the City's projected housing needs. The City currently has an overall vacancy rate of 7.6 � percent which is adequate to accommodate displaced residents from the proposed project and other projects that may displace residents at the same time. Section 3.11.7 References on page 3.11-6 of the EIR is changed as follows: California De�artment of Finance. 2016. "E-5 Population and Housin� Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2016 with 2010 Census Benchmark." �. � r. � � � � '- 2.2.6.15 Response PM-6.15 The information in Table 3.12-1 was the most recent data available at the time the Draft EIR was prepared. The information presented in Table 3.12-1 was obtained by reviewing the information available from the California Department of Education and the California Department of General Services and by contacting by telephone staff at the City of Burlingame Planning Division, the Burlingame School District, and the San Mateo Union High School District. Additional enrollment data has been made available for 2015-2016 since the publication of the Draft EIR. Table 3.12-1 has been updated with the new enrollment data, as shown below. � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 � �: . 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Table 3.12-1 Enrollment Rates and Capacities for Schools Serving the Proposed Project Burlingame Intermediate School Burlingame High School 1,1763 837 889 922 953 _ _. .... _ _ 1,350° 1,360 1,314 1,352 1,306 1,004 1,018 _ __ _ ._ 1,316 1,339 _ _ __._. __ - — _ ..._ _ _ _ Source: �California Deparfmen,*ofEducation 2015. -'G. Nelliar, pe,•s�nai comn;unrcation, Planning Div;sivn, personal communication, 'P. Chavez, personal com.�nunication `California Dapartme,^t of Education 2016a 2.2.6.16 Response PM-6.16 The Downtown Specific Plan does not identify any service ratio goals for schools or parks. The City of Burlingame General Plan does identify goals for schools and parks; however, the policies do not establish a numerical goal. The following goal and implementing objective are a part of the City of Burlingame General Plan. Community Development Goa11: Assure that Burlingame will continue to be a "well-rounded" City with residences, schools, business, industry, and space and facilities for social, recreational, and cultural activities. Implementing Objective (g) of Goa11: Provide a wide range of public facilities and services (parks, cultural facilities, utilities, schools, etc.) to serve residents and business enterprises. The Trust for Public Land produces an annual report that provides an almanac of the parks and recreation systems of the 100 most populous cities (The Trust for Public Land 2015). The report includes a wealth of park data including parkland as a percentage of adjusted city area and parkland per 1,000 residents (T'he Trust for Public Land 2015). 2.2.6.17 Response PM-6.17 The next closest high schools for the proposed project and for the cumulative projects are San Mateo High School, Mills High School, and Aragon High School, which are located approximately 1.4, 3.1, and 3.3 miles respectively from Burlingame High School, respectively. Some high school students that would live in the cumulative housing projects may have to attend San Mateo High School, Mills High School, or Aragon High School if Burlingame High cannot accommodate those students. Some portion of high school students may also attend private high schools such as Mercy, Nueva, and several schools in San Francisco. Table 2.2-2 summarizes the capacities and historical enrollment rates at Burlingame, San Mateo, Mills, and Aragon high schools. Burlingame High has not exceeded its capacity, San Mateo High has exceeded its capacity since 2012, and Aragon High has exceeded its capacity since 2015. The cumulative impact analysis for high schools identifies that the cumulative projects would add approximately 84 high school-age students to the population (page 3.12-8 of the Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 McKinley Elementary 5832 342 384 386 482 522 519 School — 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Draft EIR). Because San Mateo and Aragon are already exceeding their capacity and because Burlingame High School does not have enough capacity to accommodate an additional 84 students, the addition of students from cumulative projects would contribute to local high schools exceeding their capacities. The California Government Code Section 65995 addresses the potential impacts to high schools from development projects. As explained in the cumulative impact analysis for high schools, the cumulative development projects would be required to compensate San Mateo Union High School District for impacts associated with additional students using the high schools, per California Government Code Section 65995. This compensation would ensure that impacts to Burlingame High School, San Mateo High School, and Aragon High School would be less than significant. Table 2.2-2 Enrollment Rate and Capacities at Burlingame High School, San Mateo High School, and Aragon High School Mills High School San Mateo High School Aragon High School 1,454 b 1,325 1,445 b 1,373 1, 465 b 1, 499 1, 284 1, 232 1, 489 1, 469 1,441 1,441 Source: ' Chavez 2015� Cht: w 2015 ' C:alifornia Department of Educ,ation 201 hb 1,214 1,198 1,555 1,615 1,423 1,473 Some students that may have to attend San Mateo High School would still be able to walk to school from their homes. Some of the cumulative projects (904 Bayswater Avenue and 21 Park Road) are a 20-minute walk from San Mateo High School. The proposed project is an approximately 30-minute walk to San Mateo High. Siudents would not be able to walk to Mills High School or Aragon High School because it would take approximately an hour or more to walk there from the cumulative projects. Although some students could walk to San Mateo High, the number of vehicle trips to schools could increase if students had to attend San Mateo, Mills, or Aragon high schools. The cumulative transportation and traffic analysis identifies that the number of a.m. peak hour trips (10) and PM peak hour trips (12) generated by the proposed project would not have a significant contribution to the nearby roadways (see page 3.13-21 of the Draft EIR). If the proposed project would require that some students attend San Mateo, Mills, or Aragon high schools, additional roadways would be used. Because the number of a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips are so low, the additional trips to San Mateo, Mills, and Aragon high schools would be less than significant. 2.2.6.18 Response PM-6.18 The references referred to in the comment include the traffic impact analysis for the Downtown Specific Plan (Wilbur Smith Associates 2009) and the Downtown Specific Plan (City of Burlingame 2011). The traffic analysis for the Downtown Specific Plan is adequate to use in the proposed project analysis because it accounts for future development, such as the proposed project. Page 4 of the Focused Transportation and Parking Analysis for the proposed project (provided as Appendix H of the Draft EIR) explains that the Downtown Specific Plan assumed Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 r_�� Burlingame High School 1,350 ° 1,314 1,352 1,306 1,316 1,339 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR that 1,232 residential units would be developed within the Downtown Specific Plan area and that it is reasonable to assume that the project net increase in residential units (21) has been included in the land use projections. Although the references to the transportation analysis are from 2009 and 2011, these references account for projections made in the Downtown Specific Plan and are considered adequate and sufficient for the transportation analysis for the proposed project. 2.2.6.19 Response PM-6.19 See Master Response 2 for a discussion of the potential traffic and parking impacts from deliveries that may result from the proposed project and the ITE standards. 2.2.6.20 Response PM-6.20 Page 3.13-5 of the Draft EIR identifies the parking rate for high-rise apartments (over 5 floors) as 1.37 parking spaces per unit. As explained in Master Response 1, the number of parking spaces included in the design of the proposed project is consistent with the City of Burlingame municipal code. 2.2.6.21 Response PM-6.21 Comment noted. The number of parking spaces for the proposed project is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan, as described in Master Response 1. 2.2.6.22 Response PM-6.22 The comment that the proposed project needs guest parking is addressed in Master Response 1. One of the parking spaces far the proposed project ��ill be available guest/delivery parking. 2.2.6.23 Response PM-6.23 Public concerns about the increased number of deliveries in the neighborhood are addressed in Master Response 2. 2.2.6.24 Response PM-6.24 The Urban Water Management Plan, which was prepared by the City of Burlingame is used to identify the per capita water use, as shown in Table 3.14-1 on page 3.14-2 of the Draft EIR. Section 3.14: Utilities and Service Systems does include, however, a reference to the City of Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Facility permit (NPDES No. CA0037788), which was prepared by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SFRWQCB and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) record the information about the Wastewater Treatment Facility used by the City of Burlingame. 2.2.6.25 Response PM-6.25 Table 3.14-1 on page 3.14-2 of the Draft EIR identifies the historical water use at the City of Burlingame, from 2005 to 2010. The table below provides additional information regarding water use in the City of Burlingame from the 2015 Urban Water Management Plarr for the Cityo uf Burlingame released after the Draft EIR was prepared. � r, Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 :: 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Table 3.14-1 City of Burlingame Water Use 2011 to 2015 Snurce City ofBurlinyc�me 2016 2.2.6.26 Response PM-6.26 The cumulative analysis section identifies the potential cumulative impact to the water supply from development projects on page 3.14-4 of the Draft EIR. The cumulative impact on the water supply is identified to be less than significant because the cumulative development projects would increase the water demand by 0.1 million of gallons per day (mgd), which is within the growth considered in the Downtown Specific Plan. Given the allocation of water for the cumulative projects, the City of Burlingame will not need to increase its allocation. 2.2.6.27 Response PM-6.27 Impact Energy Use-3 identifies that the City of Burlingame provides 4.8 percent of jobs for San Mateo County residents and that approximately 13.6 percent of City of Burlingame residents work within the City. These numbers were obtained from a report prepared by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute in 2012. The unemployment rate in San Mateo County has fallen from approximately 6 to 7 percent in 2012 to 3.2 percent in 2016 and the percent of residents using alternative transit increased from 11 percent to 17 percent during that period (Commute.org 2016). Updated data would not substantially affect the analysis included in the EIR because commuting pattems have changed to favor alternative transit and the project is located within 0.5 mile of transit centers. 2.2.6.28 Response PM-6.28 Page 4-8 incorrectly identifies the net increase of population from Alternative 1 as 41. Alternative 1 would increase the population by 42 people (Addition of 61 residents minus 19 existing residents). Page 4-8 of the Draft EIR has been changed as follows: Population and Housing Impacts to population and housing under Alternative 1 would be similar as for the proposed project. Under this alternative the number of units would be the same, but the unit breakdown would be different. This alternative would be expected to add a total of 61 persons. Taking into consideration the 19 existing residents, this alternative would result in a net increase of 42 4-� individuals, which is a very small percentage of the City's projected one percent annual growth rate. This alternative would not induce substantial population growth in the City. Impacts on population and housing under Alternative 1 would be less than significant. Public Services and Recreation Impacts to public services and recreation under Alternative 1 would be similar as for the proposed project. Under this alternative, a total of 42 4-� additional residents would be added to the existing population. Similar to the project, the City's services, schools, and Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 ;-,. �:, Total Water Use (mgd) 4.02 4,17 4.16 4.10 3.52 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR parks would accommodate the additional residents without an adverse impact on services. Impacts to public services and recreation under Alternative 1 would be less than significant. 2.2.6.29 Response PM-6.29 The comment made by the Planning Commission that the public comments on aesthetics of the proposed project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission during the review of the design of the proposed project is noted. 2.2.6.30 Response PM-6.30 Page 3.13-17 provides a summary of the traffic analysis that was conducted under the "Downtown Specific Plan Traffic Analysis" header on pages 3.3-12 to 3.3-14. Page 3.13-17 has been changed as follows to clarify this point: The proposed project would not generate large numbers of trips that would cause a significant impact to the level of service at intersections in the project area see the Downtown S�ecific Plan Traffic Analysis for a full discussion). The proposed project's impact on intersection LOS would not be significant. 2.2.6.31 Response PM-6.31 Impact Transportation-1, which describes the potential traffic impacts from the proposed project, already distinguishes between construction traffic impact and operation traffic impacts. Impact Transportation-1 is divided into two sections, the first begins with the header "Construction Traffic" and deals with the impacts to traffic from construction and the second header is titled "Operation" and deals with the impacts to traffic from the operation of the proposed project. , , , ' a 0 �, Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2-�5 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEI'�/ED 09/21/2816 88:08 915-323-3018 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Sep 21 2016 7:27RM HP LRSERJET FRX p,l fiTA O� -ACIFOYNLt-CaLIFOAYJOSfATfiTRA\SPOR?AtiOYA�EJCY EDMUNDO BAOWti'r Cm DEPARTNIENT OF TRAPISPORTATION DISlRICT 4 � P.O. 90X 23660, MS-lOD � ��\ OAKLAh'D, CA 946Z3-0660 � �U G Serfau Dmugld. PHOiYE (510) 286�3328 N1lp raw xw(u? FAX (Sl0)246•5559 1"I'Y 71l httn:i fwww.dot. ca. eov/diet4! Go+�rr�oPs�ffice of Plannin� 81�a�n September 20, 2016 $� � 1 2��s $��;��I��aio�� :�`, R��H`� RECEIVE� comm,uury nevelopment Department City of Burling,ame 501 Primrose Road O�T 2 6 Z016 Hurlingamq CA 94010 CT-1 Dear Mr. Hurin: CITY OF BURLfNGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. 04,SM-201b-00036 SM082295 SM/82/PM 13.7 SCH# 2015062033 Dougla� Avenue Multf-Family Reeldeuttal Devel�pment Project — Draft Envfronmentnl Impact Report Thank yuu for including the Califomia Depat�tment of Treasportation (Caltrans) in the envimnmental review process for the project referenced above. Caltrans' new mission, vtsion, and goa.ls aignal a modernization of our approsch to Califomia's 5tato'IYansportsqon Network (STA�. The following cornments are based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. We provide these comments to promote the State's smart mobility goals that support a vibrsnt economy euad build actiee communities rather than sprawl. Praject Und¢rsYaroding The proposed projcct would take ptace an three residential parceis in tha City of Burlingama; 524 Oak Grove Avonue, 1128 Douglas Avenue, and 1132 Douglas Avenue. It would include demalition, relocation, and netiv construction activities. An exisang house and shed at 524 Oak Grove Avenue is to be demolished, A portion of an existing house at 1128 Douglas A�enue will be rolocated to the 524 Oak Grove Aveaue prope�ty, All othcr existing siructures are to be demolished. A new five-story building with 29 dwelling unite will be constructed at the 1128- 1132 Douglss Avenue property. The proposed project would provide 34 standard size off-etreet parking spaces and one electric vehicle charging etaUon. The project will provide, at a minimum, one bicycle parking apace for every 20 vehicle parking spacea. Parking CT-2 Celtrans notes that the propoeed project wi11 provide fewer vehi�le parldng spaces thsn would typically bo required for a project of this scope and scale, due to che City of Burlingame's Downtown 5peci$c Plan. Caltrans support� thesc reductions in parldng eupply in order to "Provide a f�e, .ru�Falnabfe, InNgruMd and �{f7cient nauporrarlon ryatan �a enhance Calijomin's econemy aaf llvablltey" Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 - 3:: 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR RECEIVED 09/21/2016 08:08 916-323-3918 STATE CLEARINGFIaJSE Sep 21 2016 7f27RM HP LFSERJET Fflk P,2 ' :�ic Ruben Hurin/City of Burlingame September 20, 201d Page 2 eacourage active traneportation and trensit, thereby reducing r•ehicle miles trsvelled and impacts , to the STN. Caltrans recommends unbundlod parking given the proxitnity of the project eite to CT-2 Caltrain, Unbundling allows households to forgo the cast of a perking space if they do not need ' cont. it, Please feel fra to call or email Cathsrine Crayn:e at (510) 286-6973 or catharine.crayne�dot.ca.gov with any questions regarding this letter.. Sincerely, �v� PATRSCIA MA"URICE Dislrict Brancl� Chief I.ocal Development — Intergovemmental Review � �� .r „Pmvtde a sq�e, tuelaWablt Mmgratad aed eBiclent vnneparfatlon ivafrrrt ro errharrca Ca7�fanln5 econo�nr amt Ntinblffry" � '"I Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 � :; � 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.3.1 Response Ci-1 The comment regarding the project understanding is noted. 2.3.2 Response CT-2 The comment regarding Caltrans' support for reducing parking supply to encourage active transportation and transit, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled, is noted. � e ' i �, Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 32 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR u 2.4 HOA BOARD October 11, 2016 10.11.16 pc meeting Agenda Item 6a 1128-1132 Douglas Ave. 8� 524 Oak Grove Ave. Public Hearing Site: 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue CU.b1,bIUNIC'ATIU,�' R6'CEIYED AFTER PREP.lRlTION OF STAFF REPORT Response to Public Hearing Notice: Chateau Primevere, 512 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 i�EC�IVED prr 1 1 2016 r!TY OF BUqLINGAME G'DD-Pf �,r1N��;'G Di�;. In responsc to the Environmental Report our HOA is still not in favor of a 5-story HOA-1 building, as it does not fit into the neighborhood, towering over the homes next to it. The plan also calls for a minimal easement behind our building, which concerns us. We also do not want to see thc largc tree on the current property at the back property line removed. We do not understand why this tree needs to be removed as HOA-2 �t sits on the back property line that will not interfere with the building. Thc plan shows potted plants along the back parking lot that provides no aesthetic enhancement for any of the buildings surrounding the project We submitted a picture of the tree at the last meeting. HOA-3 �Ne respectFully submit this document because our HOA President cannot attend the meeting, as it is a Jewish Holiday. Thank you. The HOA Board V 1 ' , �' Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 L-35 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.4.1 Response HOA-1 See Master Response 3 for an in-depth discussion about the potential impact from the height of the proposed project. The HOA position that they do not favar a 5-story building is noted. The fitth floor is stepped back along the front fa�ade by 10 feet from the rest of the building, providing a sense of a four-story building when viewed from nearby locations. 2.4a2 Response HOA-2 The tree to be removed at the back-property line is a Cottonwood tree in poor condition, which is classified as Tree #12 in the Mayne Tree Report. The Mayne Tree Report notes that the arborist reviewed the proposed construction plans on July 28, 2014 and determined that during the process of construction "trees #l, #2, #4, #6, and #13 would remain; all other trees will need to be removed to allow the building to be constructed." The Cottonwood tree (Tree #12) is in proximity to where the stairs and mechanical room for the parking garage would be located and would need to be removed to accommodate construction. The City of Burlingame Municipal Code requires the replacement when any protected tree is removed. As shown on Table 3.3-6 on page 3.3-19 of the Draft EIR, the applicant would plant trees as a part of the proposed project. The number of trees to be planted as a part of the proposed project is consistent with the tree replacement requirements for the removal of protected trees, described in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. 2.4.3 Response HOA-3 The comment about the submittal of the letter is noted. r�l � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 ., 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.5 ANONYMOUS RESIDENT OF BURLINGAME io/is/Zoi6 Public Comment re:1128 Doualas Avenue Proied Draft EIR /�� Oear Mr. Hurin & Fellow Commissioners: First of all, I wanted to say "thank you" for your service to the great city of Burlingame — I am always impressed by the Cit�s thoroughness and transparency when it comes to Planning Commission matters. Nice job! Below are my comments and thoughts regarding the Dratt EIR for the proposed 1128-1132 multi-family development. As an anonymous (but concerned) party, I have read the Draft EIR very closely, and have intentionally kept my comments on topic. Please use & share this document at will, and let the record refled that I have su6mitted it in good faith, as a 15-year resident of Burlingame: Overview 1 have lived in Burlingame since 2001, and currently reside in the immediate area that will be directly impacted by the proposed 1128-1132 development. My current place of residence is located on Douglas Avenue, and I have lived in this location for the last 7 years. Due to a potential conflict of interest with regards to my current housing situation, I would like to submit my comments below as "anonymous." For the record, I wholeheartedly oppose the 1128-1132 Proposed Development, and I would kindly request that the Planning Commission ask both the project developers and Panorama Environmental, Inc. for better (and more accurate!) information than is currentiy induded in the Draft EIR. The current Draft EIR is completely and wholly inadequate, in my view, for reasons which I will elaborate upon, below. My specific comments below regarding the Draft EIR are focused upon the content outlined in Section 3.3 of the comprehensive Panorema study, entitled: "Biological Resources." As a lifelong outdoorsman and wildlife enthusiast, my primary concern with the Draft EIR is that the data cited in Section 33 of the study is not only outdated (i.e. 2014 or older), but that certain information AN-2 presented in the detailed Panorama study is: Incorrect, controdittory, and misleading. Moreover, the biological analysis in the report lacks breadth and depth, and is not nearly as robust or rigorous as should be required by the Ciry of Burlingame, and its residents. RECEIVED OCT 1 8 Z016 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNlNG DIV. U � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 '[ 35 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Specific Comments for the Record: � The Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. tree survey data (dated: July, 2014) per page 3.3-1 of the Draft EIR, is simply outdated. Moreover, it is not accurate (details to follow). I agree with Commissioner Jeff DeMartini's recent public comments, that the public deserves data sources that are more recent and updated than those provided in the Draft, currently. AN-3 � I would kindly ask that the 1128-1132 developers hire Mayne Tree Expert Company - and perhaps a secondary party - to perform an updated (i.e. current) tree survey at both the Oak Grove and Douglas Avenue properties. � Table 3.3-1 '?rees in the Immediate Viciniry of the Project Sites" claims that 7 of the 12 trees at 1128 Douglas are in "Poor" condition. I would ask Mayne Tree Company to provide their AN-4 definition of "Poor," because I obtained permission from the current residents at 1128 Douglas to take a look (and to measure) the trees on the property. I disagree with the Mayne analysis that the 7 trees listed as "Poor' condition, are indeed "Poor." D.1 The beautiful Redwood Tree in that yard, purportedly planted by Mrs. Murphy, and deemed not only "protected," but also "historically significanY' (Chapter 11.06.020) by the City of AN-5 gurlingame, should absolutely not be touched. My fear is that no level of mitigation measures (particularly those proposed by the Draft EIR) will keep this tree safe. LeYs be honest, if the developers are excavating and putting in a parking lot and driveway, in addition to pipelines, sewage, electrical, etc. this tree doesn't stand a chance. LeYs use common sense here. � The Redwood tree at 1128 is not only a beautiful & historic specimen in and of itself (how coo! is the oJd black and white photo showing it a mere 10' tall?) but it also plays host to the American Peregrine Falcon, or APF, which I have personally spotted on multiple occasions (perched on the large perpendicular branch, at the top/right of the tree mast). 1 do not have a photo of this Fully Protected bird species in the Redwood tree, but I am keeping my eye out, and will take one if/when I can, and will provide that to the Planning Commission. AN-6 � As stated in the report, the American Peregrine Falcon uses the broader area for nesting and travel. My specifrc comment is this: page 3.3-6 states that the American Peregrine Falcon (APF) "could potentialfy use the trees located at the projecT site for nesting." Having witnessed this species in this tree (firsthand), I would ask the EIR reflect that these birds DO indeed use this specific tree for nesting, not that they "could potentially' use it. G.1 1 believe that the public deserves a more detailed & current biofogical analysis as to how the AN-7 American Peregri�e Falcon population could be affected not if, but when, this tree is negatively impacted (or more likely cut down/killed) by the proposed p�ojed. �J r-� Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2_:sr, 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR L� � �J r'1 AN-7 cont. H1 I would like to highlight that BOTH the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), as well as California Fish and Game Code extend protection to "all migratory birds, parts, nests, and eggs." Here, I would like to highlight that "nests" are both Federally and State protected — considered extensions of the birds themselves. I reiterated that the Redwood tree at 1128 is indeed a nesting site for the American Peregrine Falcon. The burden is on the developers and/or Panoramo to disprove this fadua/ assertion (based upon my own physical observations, to be documented, if ond when possible, by me) � I would like to know what sources the Panorama study is using regarding the American Peregrine Falcon population. Page 3.3-23 cites "2010 EPA Endangered Species Facts" for the Garter Snake, but I do not see a citation for the Peregrine Falcon. Can the Panorama folks AN-8 please provide this information for the public? Also, the public would ask that the EIR include the expert testimony & opinion of third-party, unbiased experts, such as the Audubon Society of San Francisco. The research methodology used in the Biological portion of this EIR is wholly inadequate and flawed — as the report itself, admits! � Chapter 11.06.060, the Downtown Specific Plan, and the City of Burlingame Urban Forest Management Plan (2007) all require that the developer apply for a permit "for the removal of AN-9 Work significant affecting protected trees and Chapter 11.06.090 Tree requirements and reforestation" Has the developer appiied for this permit? If so, when? (I assume that this is a public document7) � The Draft EIR mentions that the City Arborist shall determine tree health and help determine AN-10 appropriate "replacement trees." Who is the City Arborisi; and, where can the public access his/her comments, work, and other information regarding this Drafi EIR? The Draft specificaily mentions (Page 33-20) that the City Arborist has "approved" Mitigation Measure BIO-2. AN-11 � 3.3.4 "Approach to Analysis" (Page 33-12) cites some very questionable/vague resources and methods used in the Draft EIR (i.e. the internet, site visits, "websites," & Google Earth are all mentioned as root information sources). �!',. _ � , ,,� r�. The public would like to request some REAL sources and methods, specifically when it comes to the biological impads of this proposed project. 1 woufd suqgest that the developers and/or Panorama hire a real, unbiased, and independent biologicol experi, or panel, and suggest that ihey not use the "internet" as their primary citotion in such Important matiers. (Again, I agree with Commission DeMartini's argument regarding: inadequate & outdated sources and citations in the Draft EIRJ � 3.3.4 "Approach to Analysis" (Page 3.3-12) says, and I quote: "o biological survey was not conducted because of the built-up noture of the project site and surroundings." Is this really Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 �, >' 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AN-11 cont. AN-12 AN-13 how this works? Because the area is developed, there is no need to actualfy analyze the predictable biological impact? The pubiic would like to see more rigor and analysis, not a one-liner as to why there isn't any real & substantive work behind Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. My guess is that this type of work is both expensive and time-consuming. Perhaps the developers can pay for this, and provide this information to the public of Burlingame - people who pay U.S. taxes, and who deserve to know how non-U.S. taxpaying interests & parties wiil be negatively impacting the local Buriingame economy, visual sightlines, and enviro�ment.... N.1 The same logic opplies to the statement on Page 3.3-13: "the proposed project is located in an urban/suburban environment thai has been previously disturbed by human development," and cites "no impact" to wildlife via Table 33-2 (which, ironically, outlines 'moderate' risk to certain species, notab/y the Peregrine FolconJ. I would ask Panorama to clean up [heir citations and darify this misleading content. Sedron 3.3 of the Draft EIR coniradicts itself mul[iple times (i.e. roughly 10 or more times, in totolJ O� Toble 3.3� in the Draft E/R is simply misleading. This table completely contradicts the data provided earlier in the report (specifically, the table on Page 3.3-6, which suggests there is a "Moderate Potential" that the American Peregrine Falcon could be impacted. Table 3.3-4, on Page 33-14, states that there would be "No Impad" on "Biology-2," due to construction. The same logic applies for "Impact Biology-4" and "Impact Biology-6," respedively. The study is saying there will be "No Impact," which directly contradicts early portions of Section 3.3. This is yet another example of the inadequacies inherent in the Draft EIR, as currently written. � Impact Biology-4 on page 3.3-16 states that "there are no wildlife movement corridors within or near the proposed project sites. The proposed projed would not hove an impact on wildlife � 1� corridors or the movement of any resident wifdlife species." Yet, the CNDDB Map provided on page 3.3-4 (Figure 3.3-1) outlines these very corridors..... In Conclusion • The people of Burlingame deserve better data, better sources, and a more rigorous approach than is currently provided in the Draft EIR • The Dreft EIR, as written, is inadequate when it comes to outlining specific environmental AN-1 S impacts that this project wili inevitably have upon local trees and wildlife - specifically the California Redwood Tree & the American Peregrine Falcon • The public would like to see more out of Panorama, and place a higher burden on the developers to show the ultimate impact to the environment, and to be completely transparent and unbiased � Couglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR . February 2017 % .5� 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR P, '`• The public would like to see the Draft EIR revised to include expert witness testimony from independent biologists, tree experts, and the Audubon Society • The public continues to have major issues with this Proposed Project, and specifically, with AN-15 the rigor and content of the project's Dreft EIR cont. . The public would expect that the Burlingame Planning Commission will ask the developer's and Panorama for more accurate, thorouah, and detailed biofoaica! ana/vses, as the Planning � Commission continues to representative the public in these important matters � Thank you for your time, and for your consideration of my remarks - please include them in any final public documentation regarding this project. Keep up the good work, - a (concerned) Burlingame citizen U a a a � 1 1 1 1 1 �, Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 s, 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2,5.1 Response AN-1 The comments related to opposition to the proposed project and the accuracy and adequacy of the Draft EIR biological information are noted. Responses AN-3 to AN-15 clarify that the information presented in the Draft EIR is accurate and adequately analyzes the issues. 2.5.2 Response AN-2 The comment that the information presented in the Draft EIR is incorrect, contradictory, and misleading is noted. Responses AN-3 to AN-15 clarify that the information presented in the Draft EIR is accurate. 2.5.3 Res�onse AN-3 An updated Tree Survey would not provide new information that would change the environmental analysis about the impacts to trees. The Tree Survey identifies the trees that would need to be removed to accommodate construction of the proposed project and the measures that would be needed to protect trees during construction. The existing Tree Survey provides adequate information about the tree locations. No trees have been moved at the Douglas Avenue project site, no new trees have been planted since the preparation of the Tree Study, and the project footprint has not substantially changed since the preparation of the Tree Study, such that additional trees would be impacted. 2.5.4 Response AN-4 The tree reports for the proposed project were prepared by a qualified arborist that identified the health of the trees at the proposed project sites. Page 1 of the tree report for the Douglas Avenue project site notes that "Each tree was given a condition rating; this rating is based on form and vitality and can be further defined by the following table: 0 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 -100 Excellent" The tree report for the Douglas Avenue project site contains specific comments for each tree. 2.5.5 Response AN-5 Mitigation measures are defined to protect the tree. See Master Response 4 for an in-depth discussion about the potential impact to the redwood tree on the Douglas Avenue project site. 2.5.6 Response AN-6 Thank you for the report of the observation of the American peregrine falcon at the Douglas Avenue project site. This species was not observed at the Douglas Avenue project site during site visits. T'he Draft EIR notes the American peregrine falcon has the potential to occur at the Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR � `J Douglas Avenue project site and includes an analysis of potential impacts to the American peregrine falcon (see Response AN-7). 2.5.7 Response AN-7 T`he Migratory Bird Treaty Act (noted on p. 3.3-7 of the Draft EIR) and the California Fish and Game Code (noted on p. 3.3-8) extend protection to migratory birds, parts, nests, and eggs. On page 3.3-14 the Draft EIR states that "there is potential for nesting birds, including special-status birds (American peregrine falcon and Alameda song sparrow) and non-special-status birds to occur on or in the trees within the proposed project sites." The potential impacts to birds, including impacts to the American peregrine falcon was analyzed using the assumption that nesting birds, including the American peregrine falcon would be in the project area. As a condition of approval of the project, the developer would be required to apply the Downtown Specific Plan Condition of Approval 14. This Condition of Approval (see page 3.3-11) requires that construction at the sites avoid the March 15 to August 31 avian nesting period to the extent feasible, perform pre-construction surveys if the nesting season cannot be avoided, and use nesting buffers if a nest is found until the young have left the nest and the nest is vacated. Implementation of this Condition of Approval would avoid any injury or mortality to all migratory birds, parts, nests, and eggs. As shown in Master Response-1, the proposed project will not result in the removal of the redwood tree and therefore would not affect the American peregrine falcon through tree removal. 2.5.8 Response AN-8 The sources used for preparation of the Biological Resources section of the Draft EIR are presented on pages 3.3-23 and 24 of the Draft EIR. The references included local planning documents, the California Natural Diversity Database (which includes observations of sensitives species), and site visits. As explained in Response AN-7, the Draft EIR presents the conclusion that the impacts to the American peregrine falcon population would be less than significant because the birds would not be affected by the proposed project with implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan Condition of Approval 14. See Response AN-16 regarding the comment about third-party testimony. 2.5.9 Response AN-9 Table 3.3-3 on page 3.3-11 of the Draft EIR identifies Condition of Approval 15 - Protection of Street Trees and Protected Trees. The applicant is required to obtain a permit prior to the removal of any protected tree, pursuant to City's Municipal Code, Chapter 11.06 and Chapter 11.04. The applicant has not yet applied for this permit. The permit would be obtained prior to the approval of the proposed project. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 t� 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.5.10 Response AN-10 The City Arborist is Bob Disco, Parks Superintendent. Appendix D of the Draft EIR provides the comments made by the City Arborist on the Tree Study. 2.5.11 Response AN-1 1 Google Earth is just one of multiple resources that were used to understand the regional landscape. The full text of Section 3.3.4: Approach to Analysis states: "Impacts to sensitive biological resources were analyzed conducting site visits and a desktop survey of the CDFW, California Native Plant Society, CNDDB search results, and the USFWS websites" (see page 3.3- 12 of the Draft EIR). The resources that were used to conduct the impact analysis for each impact are discussed below. 2.5.11.1 Impacts to Special-Status Species (Impact Biology-1) As explained in page 3.3-3, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was used to identify the special-status species that have historically occurred in the area. The CNDDB is a database maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife that records the historical observations of special-status species in California. The CNDDB "provide[s] location and natural history information on special status plants, animals, and natural communities to the public, other agencies, and conservation organizations. The data help drive conservation decisions, aid in the environmental review of projects and land use changes, and provide baseline data helpful in recovering endangered species and for research projects" (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2016). Information about the habitat requirements for each of the special-status species was obtained from CDFW, USFWS, and CNPS. These databases are commonly used tools that provide adequate background information about the requirements for special-status species. The conclusions about the impacts to special-status species was made based on an understanding of the habitat requirements of the species, the potential for suitable habitat in the disturbed environments of the proposed project. 2.5.11.2 Impacts to Riparian Corridors and Sensitive Natural Communities (Impact Biology-2), Impacts to Federally Protected Wetlands (Impact Biology-3), and Impacts to Wildlife Corridors (Impact Biology-4) Aerial imagery is a helpful tool to understand the regional landscape of an area and is typically used as part of an investigation of biological resources. Google Earth was used to verify that the proposed project area is in a typical urban/suburban environment �vith a system of streets and homes. Rivers, creeks, riparian corridors, open spaces that may have sensitive natural communities, bodies of water that would be considered federally protected, and vegetated areas that could act serve as wildlife corridors would be visible on aerial imagery. The information obtained from review of the regional landscape using Google Earth was coupled with site visits that confirmed that the proposed project area is in a suburban environment without creeks, rivers, bodies of water, or vegetation communities. The impacts to the urban environment were analyzed in the Burlingame General Plan, and the Downtown Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 ' f / 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Specific Plan. The site visits and site specific analyses were used to identify any changes in conditions that may have occurred since those documents were prepared. 2.5.11.3 Impacts from Conflicts with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources (Impact Biology-5) and Impacts from Conflicts with HCPs or NCCPs (and Biology-6). The analysis for Impact Biology-5 and Biology-6 was conducted by identifying the pertinent policies for the proposed project area through the review of local and regional planning documents. The developed nature of the project site is identified because it limits the amount of available habitat. As described above, the impacts to biological resources were thoroughly analyzed. 2.5.12 Response AN-12 The full text of page 3.3-13 of the EIR reads "The proposed project is located in an urban/suburban environment that has been previously disturbed by human de��elopment. Table 3.3-2 demonstrates that there is no habitat in the proposed project area that would support any special-status plants, amphibians, fish, reptiles, or non-bat mammals. The proposed project would not impact these special-status species." The text above refers to the potential impacts for certain wildlife species, not all wildlife species. This text only refers to the potential impacts to special-status plants, amphibians, fish, reptiles, and non-bat mammals. Table 3.3-2, which starts on page 3.3-5 of the Draft EIR is titled as "Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area." As stated in the title of the table, this table provides information about the potential for a species to occur within the proposed project area and not the potential impact to the species. The reason a no impact conclusion was made for special- status plants, amphibians, fish, reptiles, or non-bat mammals was because no habitat that could sustain these species is located in the proposed project area. Special-status wildlife species that could potentially occur in the proposed project area (invertebrates, birds, and bats) are discussed separately on page 3.13-14. 2.5.13 Response AN-13 As described in Response AN-12, Table 3.3-2 on page 3.3-5 of the Draft EIR provides information about the potential for a species to occur within the proposed project area and not the potential impact to the species. Table 3.3-2 states that American peregrine falcon have a moderate potential to occur in the proposed project area and Impact Biology-1 states that the impacts to nesting birds, including American peregrine falcon would be less than significant after implementation of Condition of Approval 14 (see Response AN-7). Impact Biology-2 refers to potential impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities. T'he conclusion that there is no impact under Impact Biology-2 does not contradict Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2-.. 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR the data provided in Table 3.3-2. Table 3.3-2 does not provide any information about riparian habitat or sensitive natural habitat. Impact Biology-4 refers to potential impacts to wildlife corridors or wildlife movement. The conclusion that there is no impact under Impact Biology-4 does not contradict the data provided in Table 3.3-2. Table 3.3-2 does not provide any information about wildlife corridors (see Response AN-14). Impact Biology-6 refers to potential impacts from conflicts with Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs). The conclusion that there is no impact under Impact Biology-6 does not contradict the data provided in Table 3.3-2. Table 3.3-2 does not provide any information about HCPs or NCCPs. 2.5.14 Response AN-14 As explained on page 3.3-3 of the Draft EIR "Figure 3.3-1 shows the areas where special-status species have historically been observed within the 1-mile buffer of the proposed project sites." The areas where wildlife species have historically been observed is different than a wildlife corridor. There are no wildlife corridors identified on Figure 3.3-1. Wildlife corridors are landscape features that connect suitable habitat in regions otherwise fragmented by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human development. Wildlife corridors may include areas of open space or substantial stream corridors. As stated on page 3.3-16, "there are no wildlife movement corridors located within or near the proposed project site." 2.5.15 Response AN-15 See Response AN-11, which demonstrates that the sources used to conduct the environmental analysis is sufficient to make the conclusions that were made in the Draft EIR. See Response AN-17, which demonstrates that the Draft EIR provides sufficient analysis for the impacts to American Peregrine Falcon. See Response Master Response 4 which describes the potential impact to the redwood tree. The biological analysis in the Draft EIR was prepared using objective scientific principles and presents an unbiased analysis of the environmental impacts. As shown in Responses AN-3 to AN-16, the Biological Resources section in the EIR provides adequate information and analysis. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2..�� 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.6 CLARKE SO From: IC arke So To: CD�PLG-Ruben Hurn Subject: Project proposal on 1128 - 1132 Douglas Ave. Date: Friday, October 14, 2016 1:40:36 PM Dear Mr. Hurin, I am writing to submit my deep concern of the above project which is now under your committee's review. I am a resident and property owner across the street (1133 Douglas Ave) of the proposed site and here below are my points. CS-1 1.The buiiding proposed is too high which stand out and spoil the harmony of the other buildings on the street. The height of the building must be capped. 2. The building proposed is facing West at a 90 degree to the rest of all other buildings on the street ie. with its side facing the street. This will leave a Blank Wall CS-2 effect like the concern we all have with the Apple building on Burlingame Ave. It just look bad and down graded the street look altogether. It should be redesigned to face the street. 3. The traffic and parking are sure a serious concern with the dramatic increase of CS-3 the residents on one of the shortest street in Burlingame. The units in the project must be reconsidered and reduced. I seek your consideration and accommodation of our concern and keep Burlingame and our street beautiful and functional. RespectFu I ly, Clarke So ' ' � ' , � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2,6.1 Response CS-1 See Master Response 3 for an in-depth discussion about the potential impact from the height of the proposed project. 2.6.2 Response CS-2 Figure 3.1-5 on page 3.1-12 of the Draft EIR shows a simulation of the proposed new building from Douglas Avenue. As shown on Figure 3.1-5, the side of the proposed new building facing Douglas Avenue would not be a blank wall. The side of the proposed new building would include windows, balconies, and different colors. The design of the wall facing Douglas Avenue has also been revised to include a setback of the fifth floor by approximately 10 feet from the building fa�ade. The recent design changes would reduce the aesthetic impact from those presented in Figure 3.1-5. This design characteristic and all other design characteristics will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. MM AES-1 requires the applicant to submit the revised plans to the Planning Commission for design review approval. As described in MM AES-1 (page 3.1-13 of the Draft EIR) the Planning Commission will be the agency that determines if the design of the proposed new building is compatible with the City of Burlingame's guidelines. 2.6.3 Response CS-3 See Master Response 1 for an in-depth discussion about the potential traffic impacts. As noted in Master Response 1, the number of proposed units has been reduced from 29 to 27 since publication of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR includes two alternatives that would reduce the number of units for the proposed building. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the density of the proposed building (see Section 4: Aesthetics). As summarized in Table 4.5-1, Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the traffic impact as compared to the proposed project (see pages 4-34 to 4-35). T`he City of Burlingame will decide whether to approve the proposed project or one of the Alternatives reducing the density of the proposed building after certification of the Final EIR. L�1 � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project final EIR • February 2017 r-�,; 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.7 DANIELLE RIENKS COMMENT LETTER #1 10.11.16 PC Meeting Item # 6a 1128-1132 Douglas Ave. 8 524 Oak Grove Ave. Pdge 1 of 3 From: DR R Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:08 PM To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin Subject: 1128-1132 Douglas Ave Burlingame � 't1/ �.A7r � �'. _ � r �; , , , ;!l17�",_, _ i,; , , ��L��V��V �r _ � , �I i r OF BURLWGA�.1�. �DJ - PLANNING DI`, Dear Ruben, I have lived at 1126 Douglas Avenue since June of 1999. 17 years of history on Douglas Avenue. I am planning on attending the Public Hearing meeting tomorrow night at Burlingame City Hall regarding the planned development of a 5 story rental unit building that the a developer wants to DR1-1 build in my driveway! ( unfortunately my landlord sold out a portion of this land and the property line falls approximately 70% of our driveway and 6 inches from my living space wall.)this is not about just my living space... this new building will effect everyone in this community. Also the driveway now is 8 feet and with just a few people sharing it now we have many issues already and Douglas Avenue has many parking and traffic issues now. Don't quote me on the following this as I have not reviewed the current plans and documents yet: The basic plan as I understand it: Demolition of old 5 apartments and 2 houses 1128-1132 Douglas ( imagine the noise and air and DRI-2 water pollution during deconstruction and demolition)DRILLING and Digging with heavy loud machinery! for a 2 year build *Build 5 stories/29 units equals at least 60 people. (the units will be high priced and most renters will DR1-3 be living with 2-5 people per Studio to 3 bedroom apartments in order to afford it. I know many folks living in current Burlingame very small units with 5 or 6 people per unit (imagine 60 people sharing a street driveway that currently has 8 people sharing it) DR1-4 remove several trees, ( they are suppose to save the huge redwood but it looks like they will run I into construction problems will get approval later to chop it down once the build starts) *build underground parking for 34 spaces ( imagine 34+ more cars approx.8 times a day coming and DR1-5 9oing) can you imagine digging, drilling and building for 2 years? Monday- Friday 7am to 5 PM ( this law needs to be adjusted as the demolition will be on my daughter bedroom wall!) And I do not want them to start construction at 7 am `remove and move historical house 1128 Douglas to 524 Oak grove address. ( the house has many DRl-6 construction issues, they will most likely oniy be able to move 15 feet of it) or I think once they start moving that house it will fall apart. I have seen dry rot and termite and water damage and other probiems with that house. demolition and rebuild of 524 Oakgrove. neighbors nearby will experience 1 to 2 years of DR1-7 construction I*demolition and rebuild with 4 units apartment building at 1132 Douglas ' building a 3 or 5 story building here will turn my home in to a black hole. I will no longer have DR1-8 sunlight. I am not sure if I have a right to light =-but I would think so after being here for 17 years. We have a wonderful community here, I do not believe a 5 story or 3 story building is needed here on our tiny little tree lined street. t � DR1-9T 5 stories is not a good idea! it will be the first 5 story building in about 50 years, the traffic will be 1 horrible the average person comes and goes 8 times a day, they say 29 units but it will most likely be 60 DR1-lOT people living there that is an assumed 480 more car trips on Douglas avenue. Can you imagine the 1 traffic, the noise pollution and what about the water and PGE Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 10.11.16 PC Meeting Item # 6a 1128-1132 Douglas Ave. & 524 Oak Grove Ave. Page 1 of 3 � ,- � \%r lll��.A�kl r7 /I i i� ' /'i�'/ ;' li�' I � �/ I' I do not understand ��hy he has to build here, IT does not fit the neigl�borhood. w�e need our 2 quaint houses to stay. talk him into buyine the park road POSt office and develop that I think tliat DR1-11 is more appropriate place fora apartment building of this nature. He can maybe rebuild the 5 apartments in the back of 1128 Douglas into 10 studios. he should not remo��e 1128 or 113? Douglas they are beautiful house and they make the street beautiful. ( also the folks who live there are a big part of our community. Alsa How is it [hey can plan for water and energy to go to 60 more people?? we already have DR1-12 problems with electric fades in and fades out since the Burlingame Ave construction. I am assumin:,i they will ha��e to change and add underground piping DR1-13� How can we have 60 more people dri��ing in and out of the dri�e way? OUR dri��eway??? The de��eloper must kno�� that 24 people will not be li��ing there it will be 60 + or more people I want to request another traffic report as i Have watched it go from pretty normal to heavily populated outra�,eous speeders and more and more people driving thru Douglas Ave and a thruway. I would also like to request another pollution report to see how the water, noise, light is affected.In addition, I do not belie��e they will sa�e the trees as i ha�•e seen builders after saying they would save the trees, they end up taking them down because the builders always nin into DR1-14 problems or they end up killing the trees because they dig at the roots. Also the dust, lead, asbestos, how are we supposed to li��e breathing that in our own space for 2 years. when the same developer built the imit behind my house next to 1221 floribunda, I was deathly sick with a lung infection for a whole year and half (18 months of coughing and my house has 1 inch layer of constniction dust inside the house, on our groceries, dishes, clothes and books everyv��here. I mean there must be somethine we can fiQht on that. I briefly checked out the shadow study. It will be a black hole back here at l 126 except from noon to 230 pm when we are usually not home. that is not fair especially since for l7 years we DR1-15 enjoy our morning peace and quiet and our afternoon sun. I lo�e our house and I dont want it to change I think he can �o de�-elop elsewhere where it is more needed! �,�, CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Buriingame, California 94010-3997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division PH: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 ��Z��:Date: September 6, 2016 To: Office of Planning and Research, Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties From: City of Burlingame, Community Development Department Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Resid ential Development Project RECEIVED ��r _ �,�; , r� �= e�.�p�i�v`a°.±E , , .... c��. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 10.11.16PCMeeting t��.l'./! \;r�>;��,!;/��/,'; Item#6a ;! '/ .. 1',., ' '!t ..�1, � ;' 1128-1132 Douglas Ave. 8 524 Oak Grove Ave. � � � \ �� t Page 1 of 3 Project Description: The City of Burlingame has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project (proposed project) in the City of Burlingame (City). The proposed project includes replacing a single-family house at 1132 Douglas Avenue, and a single-family house and a 4-unit apartment building at 1128 Douglas Avenue with a new 29-unit apartment building. The existing house at 1128 Douglas Avenue has local historic significance and a portion of the house which retains most of the original structure would be relocated to 524 Oak Grove Avenue. The other existing structures at 1128 and 132 Douglas Avenue, and the existing house at 524 Oak Grove Avenue would be demolished. The new building would have a mix of studio, 1-, 2-, and 3- bedroom apartments. The project site would be landscaped with drought- tolerant plants, and 34 full-size parking spaces would be provided. A large redwood tree and a large oak tree would be preserved. 10 new trees would be pianted on the site. Project Location: The proposed project would take place on three residential parcels within the City of Burlingame, in San Mateo County. The two parcels on Douglas Avenue, Assessor's Parcel Nos. (APNs) 028-132-180 and 029-132-190, are immediately adjacent to each other. These two parcels are located less than a block south of California Drive and the Caltrain tracks and two blocks west of downtown Burlingame. The third parcel, APN No. 029-083- 010, is located at 524 Oak Grove Avenue. This parcel is a block south of Rollins Road and US 101. Public Review Period: The Draft EIR is available for a 45-day pubic review and comment period beginning on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 and ending on Thursday, October 20, 2016. A Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse. The Draft EIR is available for review at the City's website (.:.�r�.r b.�rl:rga�iie org do.;g as), the Burlingame Public Library at 480 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010, and at the Burlingame Community Development Department, Planning Division at the address below. ;�,_�r�r_.�,_�,?�r�»,��,�Page 1 of 2 :�;Public Hearing: Readers are invited to submit written comments on the adequacy of the document (i.e., does the Draft EIR identify and analyze the possibie environmental impacts and recommend appropriate mitigation measures? Does it consider and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives?). Comments are most helpful when they suggest specific alternatives or measures that would better mitigate the significant environmental effects. Please include your name and contact information, and direct your response to this Notice of Availability to: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner City of Burlingame, Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 558-7250 EmaiL rhurin i�bur�ng�r-,e o,a The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to obtain additional comments from the community. The Planning Commission hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Buriingame, CA 94010. i��i��iPage 2 of 2 AND PLEASE can everyone stop driving so fast on douglas avenue!!! They said did a traffic report 2 years ago and stated that 80 percent of drivers stayed under 30 mph. I witness daily more and more drivers speeding down douglas avenue. if you want to drive fast take a different route to the freeway!!! Danelle R. Rienks RECEIVtD o�T ,, �, �, ? Y OF BURLINGAh"�. " 7� - PLANNING Jlb' ;� �"I Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 ,; 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2,7.1 Response DRl-1 The site plan on Figure 3.13-1 (p. 3.13-16 in the Draft EIR) shows the primary driveway for the proposed project at the front of the property on Douglas Avenue. Twelve parking spaces would be located at the rear of the property and accessed through the driveway. The analysis of the potential hazards related to the shared driveway is presented in Impact Transportation-4 on page 3.13-19. The applicant has submitted a request for a variance to allow construction of a 9- foot driveway rather than the required 12 feet. MM TRAFFIC-2 would reduce the hazard to a less than significant level. 2.7.2 Response [JR1-2 The comment regarding the air quality, water quality, and noise impacts during construction is noted. The potential air quality, water quality, and noise impacts were analyzed in the Draft EIR in Sections 3.2, 3.8, and 3.10, respectively. 2.7.3 Response DR1-3 Impact Population-1 on page 3.11-4 of the Draft EIR explains that approximately 67 people would live in the proposed building and that the "number of residents was calculated using a formula that assumes that the number of people that reside in a residential unit is equal to the number of bedrooms plus one per unit." This analysis is revised as follows on Page 3.11-4 to reflect the reduction in the number of units and residents: "The proposed project would include the construction of 27 �9 apartments that would provide housing for approximately 62 � people. This number of residents was calculated using a formula that assumes that the number of people that reside in a residential unit is equal to the number of bedrooms plus one per unit. There are 38 bedrooms in the 27 � apartments; an average of 2.3 people would reside in one residential unit. The existing house (1 unit) and apartment building (4 units) at 1128 Douglas Avenue has a total of 10 bedrooms and the house at 1132 Douglas Avenue (1 unit) has 3 bedrooms. The existing population at these two addresses is 19 persons using the same formula as above. The proposed project would have a net increase in the City's population of approximately 43 4� people. The addition of 43 4� people represents an approximately 0.2 percent increase in the City population. The City is projected to grow one percent annually (see Table 3.11-1). A 0.2 percent addition to the population is not substantial and is within the City's one percent annual growth rate. The proposed project's addition to the City's population is less than significant." 2.7.4 Response DR1-4 See Master Response 4 for a discussion about the potential impact to the trees on the Douglas Avenue project site. MM BIO-2 are proposed to monitor and protect the health of the trees. � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR � 2.7.5 Response DR1-5 See Response PM-6.1. The allowable construction hours have been changed and include a start time of 8:00 a.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and City recognized holidays. The project will be subject to this change. 2.7.6 Response DR1-6 The comment and concern about the fragility of the historic house and the effects of moving the historical home to 524 Oak Grove are noted. The applicant would be required to follow the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation £� Illitstrated Gi�idelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The building will be rehabilitated, which includes "...making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural or architectural heritage." The project's consistency with the standard for rehabilitation is shown in Table 3.4-3 on pages 3.4-15 and 3.4-16. 2.7.7 Response DR 1-7 T'he proposed construction schedule is 14 to 15 months. 2.7.8 Response DR1-8 The comment that the proposed project would result in a shadow at 1126 Douglas Avenue is noted. The shadow study is included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. The shadow analysis is presented in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. The comment that a five or three story building is not needed is noted. 2.7.9 Response DR 1-9 See Master Response 3 for an in-depth discussion about the potential impact from the height of the proposed project. The Draft EIR presents alternatives to the proposed project that are less than five stories. The comment that a five-story building is not a good idea is referred to the decision makers. See Master Response 1 related to traffic. The traffic study indicated that traffic effects would not significantly affect traffic flows in the area. 2. 7.10 Response DR 1-10 See Master Response 1 for an in-depth discussion about the potential traffic impacts. Traffic effects are addressed in Section 3.13 of the Draft EIR. As discussed in Master Response l, the proposed project would add approximately 134 new daily trips (rather than the stated 480 trips). The potential water quality, noise, and energy use impacts were analyzed in the Draft EIR in Sections 3.8, 3.10, and 3.15, respectively. These impacts would be less than significant. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.7.1 1 Response DR 1-1 1 The Planning Commission makes the final decisions about whether the design of the proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions of the City of Burlingame. The preference to retain the houses at 1128 and 1132 Douglas Avenue is noted. 2.7.12 Response DR 1-12 The need for additional water and energy is addressed in Sections 3.14 and 3.15, respectively. Additional water and electricity area available. See Response DR2-5. 2.7.13 Response DR 1-13 The shared driveway will not be used by all residents. The shared driveway will access the 12 above ground parking spaces at the rear of the property. The applicant has requested a variance for the proposed driveway width of 9 teet (12 feet is the standard). MM TRAFFIC-2 would reduce hazards to a less than significant level. 2.7.14 Response DR 1-14 The request for the additional traffic report and pollution report is noted. The existing traffic report (Appendix H of the Draft EIR) provides a detailed analysis of: • Trips currently generated at the site • Trips generated by the new project • Effects of the proposed project on the downtown traffic circulation, consistent with the analysis for the Downtown Specific Plan • Effects on parking • Construction traffic • Project site access and circulation • Deliveries Mitigation measures are defined to avoid significant effects. The potential impacts to light from shadow were analyzed in the Aesthetics Section (Section 3.1) and the Shadow Study, which was provided as Appendix B of the Draft EIR. The water quality, noise, and traffic impacts were analyzed in the Draft EIR in Sections 3.8, 3.10, and 3.13, respectively. Mitigation is defined to reduce all impacts to a less than significant level. See Master Response 4 for an in-depth discussion about the potential impact to the trees on the Douglas Avenue project site. See Response DR2-3 regarding the potential impacts from dust, asbestos, and lead (lead based paints) emissions during construction of the proposed project. 2.7.15 Response DR 1-15 The comment that the proposed project would result in a shadow at 1126 Douglas Avenue is noted. Figure 2 in the shadow study report (Draft EIR Appendix B) shows the project would cause an increase in shadow on the adjacent lot at 3 pm, especially in the fall and winter. The City of Burlingame has not established a community standard for shadow impacts, and Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 ?-S 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR does not have criteria for significance. The Downtown Specific Plan provides guidance for assessing potential shadow impacts for projects in Downtown Burlingame, specifying that as part of the design review process, development in the Specific Plan Area that is proposed to be taller than existing surrounding structures (such as the proposed project) should be evaluated for potential to create new shadows/shade on public and/or quasi-public open spaces and major pedestrian routes. Based on the established criteria in the Downtown Specific Plan, the proposed 5-story building would not create significant new shadoti�s/shade on public and/or quasi-public open spaces and major pedestrian routes. Therefore, the proposed project would not be considered to have significant shadow impacts. U ' � � a 0 a � � � � � � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 �. 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.8 DANIELLE RIENKS COMMENT LETTER #2 From: DR R [danellerienks@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 12:54 AM To: PLG Comm-leff DeMartini Subject: Re: 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue Dear Commissioner Jeff, Thank you so much for expressing all of your City of San Francisco comparison concerns on 2009-2015 dated material for this Douglas Project. You hit all of my "more than 3 minute items" right on! I really wanted to talk about the outdated reports. I worked 12 hours today, then ran to the meeting so I felt a little dis-shoveled and nervous trying to cram in my concerns in 3 minutes! Here area few more items that I am requesting be posted on record under public concerns Light/shadow impact: a 3 story building will be super bad but a 4 or 5 story building will turn my house DR2-1 into a black hole. Please consider we already have a 2 story building next to us on the east side at 1120 Douglas and 5 more 2 story buildings directly behind me. Traffic/Parking Impact: ( Over a period of 17 years, I have continually watched Douglas Avenue become DR2-2 busier and busier (lots of folks speeding around the rotary and shooting down Douglas Avenue to get to California �rive) traffic impact from 8 residence to approximately 67... thats a big impact Noise/sound and dust, dirt, lead, asbestos pollution: this a huge impact on everyone nearby during DR2-3 deco�struction, demolition and reconstruction( assuming the build will take 2 years) what about the consequences of poor lung health during that time and afterwards? ( the property line is up against our living space) and the property line shares our garage wall... I have attached pics of this. DR2-4 Noise and Sound pollution of 67 people living on site (right now I have 8 neighbors who share the property lots) Water usage and pipe line issues ( how does this effect the street? Do they need to dig up Douglas and install / repair pipes? Waste and sewage issue for 67 more people, I believe this will be a huge impact on our current system. Do they need to deal with underground street digging for proper waste and sewer lines as well? We ��5 have had several sewage overflow in our shared driveway from 1128 apartments.. The sewage line backs up and flows all over the driveway about 10 times a year! Yuck PGE: how does the proposed development effect gas and electricity usage? And do other main lines need to be repaired on street and on property? DR2-6T Another main concern is what happens to my driveway? I understand that this will become a one way j drive and I will drive under their building to get out? DR2-7T How deep do they need to drill/dig excavate dirt and rock to dig for an underground parking garage? 1 Trees: I am so afraid they will die and have to go once they start building. As far as I understa�d. the DR2-8 builder may reapply to get an emergency tree removal permit as they will not survive during construction. � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 =:: i 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR L� � , � Our neighbors have a sited a Peregrine Falcon nesting in that redwood tree on 1128 Douglas so perhaps during construction the Falcon will have to re home, I do not know much about the bird except I DR2-9 remember several years ago there were a few nesting at SFO and tons of fans were watching them bring food to their baby falcons on the falcon webcam! The move of 1128 Douglas.. I think they will only be able to move about 15 feet of the front of that house. It has a lot of dry rot and structural issues , I don't understand how it can be still historical if its moved away from the heritage trees? And they already moved it from Burlingame Avenue... hmmm can DR2-10 they still move it again? And how can it be historical if they only move 15 feet of it? If James Murphy had a voice, he would not want the house moved so far away from the train and he wouldn't want it so far away from Ciry hall as he was one of the first city clerks and the famous train station master. Oh and moving the house at night time. no! that will take all night. Is the developer or the city going to move us to another location during this time? DR2-11 I truly believe the developers can come up with a better building solution that works for everyone. If he has to build... give him 2 stories max or I wish he could rebuild whats already here..:) it is so beautiful here now. I am currently working at a private estate as a personal assistant on 3 year construction project. I am telling you it is crazy loud with all of the heavy machinery running daily and it is very dusty and dirty. I do plan on staying in my home during construction process here, however, I think it will be unbearable and we all need our peace and rest so we can go make more money so we can keep the economy rollin! thank you for your listening ear!! Danelle these two images show my bedroom wall and below garege is attached to a apartment on the property line [https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_ll_image_list.png] File_004.jpeg<htt s: drive.goo�le.com/file/d/083�ne281-DOQLV1Rai1MclYzVms/view?usp=drive web> [https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_ll_image_list.png] File_004.jpeg<https://drive.Roo�le.comlfile/d/063�ne281-DOQLVJRai1MclYzVms/view?usp=drive web> the next images are what I currently see when I walk out my front door [https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_11_image_list.png] File_002.jpeg<https://drive.�oo�le.com/file/d/OB3�ne281-DOQeIIIQzNFQ3R20EE/view?usp=drive web> [https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_ll_image_list.png] File_OOO.jpeg<https://drive.�oo�le.com/file/d/OB3�ne281-DOQcIR1c2dRVWxJTjQ/view?usp=drive web> [https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_ll_image_list.png] File_003.jpeg<https://drive.google.com/file/d/OB3�ne281- DOQNFZkaWdWdiITVz�/view?usp=drive web> [https://ssl.gstatic.co m/docs/doclist/images/icon_ll_image_list.png] File_OOl.jpeg<https://drive.�oo�le.com/fi le/d/083gne281- DOQ62RLLUFBRHBZRDA/view?usp=drive web> Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 �2 �; _; 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR [https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_11_image_list.png] File_006.jpeg<https://drive.Roo�le.com/file/d/063�ne281-DOQRHVZOEIsdEtN50U/view?usp=drive web> ' l�J � �� 0 � 0 a � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 r- �h 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR \ Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2-51 _ -� r • n � . , �c,-r 4 � � • � , r . 7 . �g . l� � � . � � � f .�: � r i X' ,, � "' . � ° ��. , 1'" , �' . t. : . . � i : ,�� r r'� M+�s — ►,,;. . � . ��►a� r'�'1`. � i�`'� r�;. � Ki h�:,�( ` n * ,�Yi. ' � � �r� .��.�[ $� ' • �•' ^f - .+�. _ �i,a � 4� �+if, "�� _� y� �l!fi� •� �t, * �f�j?� ' �� ; � � �' }' � � '' A y`�,jj.�" ;�Y,' a F � i Li� � .�r � �' . : t � , . .�,�' x •�� :��,�L '�• . . -�,.,�+� � a:�. � ~ .Y� F. � ' " .� '1v ,-'�'�3..� �i I h �� 1� * � s . y •� � * F p . �`, � �, it �� : .. t.., .� . . � cy�. r��.�s, � :�' ,� •i . "�'��a�: T Y. �d'�''� , 1 +� . :.. `R:�J �. _�� a��Ci;t � .•w }n � �� ' .. r� y�C:' t ,� !� ,� : k �Y. '`r` � ��r � � a r r , t ,fY�� I�k� � �,�. � ��BT,;�.�F` � �,• �rt�.. - -� �� » � i 4*yv�� t+ ;A ��k', y < <•� `�� i�' �'�' #�1 ' � :� i�•. ��' � �i ,. �' � ;,; �'• ' "` �,,� � t � .'+ = :. r _ * ' ,,��, rr '�''�i. �� k Y`�� ' � ~ ' { ' S• {. .ry I `� I•�: �.�� ' �k � r 5•� Y, �� ` Y 9 1 .� �� ,'�'/� . � S � �; .K p 'j,� , %'�t:,{ - � "e . �.. '� �� ,*�t �;� •� .q-��l�c= � " _ � - ��s'a�''�S�Y' ��. � `�; •e y�•� , S� y ��`,�..�., . i � ►� � t7�1'f . �s � r''� � ', /«�� .+ � �.�- ; �:;. ' � Y .. ` �� : .. p.� �F y �1� '� r � f� �• A � �,�A. . '. �hl `... � . � � . k f w . f l y��r i, . aaX w � � •. 4 J � +t'. �` . ' j �� - '�rt� ',l�,�� w`�•'�, � ,,., � . � �� % ' � t�� .� ,t��'�� '�� t ST �"-' �-�` �. r•f [.'4731�.''� ... � � e[ ;e�';) jkr�� . • l• ��. Y� ,`(�� .�'. ti. {t 9 Sl,.�.� . -� ' _ ' . ��"eMv.. �n � .� ' �ii� i' •� . . � � _ . ��. -:Xy r' � '�',.i y' ! v. . i�' - ' 7 - 'hL y.F .�.�f ' ".. • ,. . . �� '`-• Y '�- ry�+,`�, � �, ?t e Pi °p - .. .� , * � - � `l�$�)�,� ♦. � a �y �.• -{�.�. , � T ��', .� ,Y, �`{JH^. � Y . �� r7 � 1 y \ . Y j ^� ) �� a� ' ';I �j� � l'. F' � R: .�{ � t ''�i - x L S " � :.�i.� 4.��. .�M 1=�.� - _ ' , ' � _ '.iFS � l�. ��S�is r�� " . . � I �+ I ( � � jt \'_J�' �� 3 ' / •S �' ' �tri � i` � �� ` . �� ` ; �., • �� ,� s�= � l p.� ��pj �µ ?"��j •. :� - <1�� '�,..'... � I: '+ ��- +�� ' � i\. _ s. � . , . �... �: `� ��R +�A. � � ' ��' [' . . � � � � �r� . J_' ` . . ,.� ,`y :'}'�� .A V . ac�.. � ° '� j` � ��` � :i� � •��' ~ . r. •�.. _..�� %�,��r`'yI � K >. � . .._ � �� }�#� �i�r �;�� , � R !S. ��7-�, i .� � �" '� p ° .** T � � �� 4' , ��T ' ' � '.. �� -T` :�' "+� - �A �, ' "` �±, 1� i: t �: c: � _ � ' F. � < � �L . M � �i ' ,x � rR w t I .A� � � . t3 . �•'�- � � - :; • � � , . � , � 's~� �?i ' �.� � ,�, ` �� . ' . � ! �► . - i, ' - i ' ,` � •_ • _ Y , • � . f� � •t �: 1 � � J. ti. ; � �� ` t .d a. i. ..�Y[T * �' ��3j r 2� .. � : .� . i��. . . �, ... a _ _ ` � • �� - ' . y,.ti � . . . • . � �� .. , �`. � �-�' . � . . , • � - r ' _ �� .� '� '., �.. . - • ._. 1, w� � � � . .._ . _ � � �'�� ' - ys •7[ �i' . � l� . �3.a�[�' _ . �-�t�. .r �. t � � l i 3,;'.., � _�;,� ,_ y. ,,�y�� . µ��y+�� x � -i r �` � ,.T 1� k - 1;.I� . ', � � �'4iG+ `�� . s y 1 � ,�L SVd i J `� �y ,� €:; °�,"�,-� � � � � �. , ,Q� k u'y.''� �- ��.. � Y! �': � �w � jll a-.. - �� 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR � " � � /' , 'i' � ,,. � ;�x �' � . rd��.. .�� :.,�+ _ � 4 . .f �_'h: , N �� 4 �� (f� ` , .'' �. .��,,T� �h f y �^� �. �r r��` .. � Y�• , µ :1 :'¢�`.: � < "�,�" ;,� Y.. ,r � ',,� �� . ' r�� : � - �' r3' ' 'a��. ,. ��...., � .. 1 � �`i� 1 �� , T r .f� a . r � � � � � ,� � n'IRu r ^ w ti � �`' � .:.r �- � Iv . ��'�. . .-. " y �.�f, . y , v 3, .� � i:. ' '�' �',��'4 i it� .j 6u � t f. ��.}' t 'i � ` .� r. ��a�'�':: ,� �,�-, � ` k �' � 1� .3� •. `,� T�F+P�'� �"'#�'� �� ' ��1��ii� �� r :�� :� �� 1 . �. .��..,� -, "�' r +-,..�. .�l � � �h� �;. : � ��,�_ �,°�,� .-�' z . r ,�.�,� � �•,'-%r1..� �, � � � t�.. �t�'. � � �;�j'�, .:;�.� ��; ; `,-�' % ��Y.��. _ � �., 7�� - � ,, .+,;1: � �f._: �i' .�'S�'A . . . � - � ' Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2-59 1 ��. ~'i .. . �.l:f�: . _. .. .. . '�-.. ?:�. . ., ' , � �,�" t � �� I� . f ,� � t' • • � j[� ti . "� '- "� �,y� � i•'9 ; . + '. � `'�� ~ ��+ � `� " .. . 4 * y h� �',�. r ,,�' 4 � N.v ',�. i ' _:��1. , . � � •+ S .�. . _�� . � o ' � R :>E . r • • =� �� . . .- h,. .� .` • 5. { � - �>' ei;. �� .i . i� .. . - ' . i ,� < x,• • •i� : �t^ � : j � • '� �. � i� �a � �i .0 .;, £ r�s`� cT• • i�- � ; ; .�!% ' R _ `�. . �F.� � . _ ..� It �� 7 . • d_ � 4 . � t , . _ `��, ' � •��`..�'1 ;+,.q�4 ' � ' C � �' �F.z, � �� ' �� . • `�y ' � . • �� te!f .. } `�� . . _ , � • �.�y+t.� 'i ��1f ..; ' .. '�+' .. . . ,� . : i +:,: , y''�`�. , . � � ��I. �� s ,� � �, . . � .t .R � & •�% . . . . � . . t � = � � `'� q - '� • -y� E"' � . �. . .. . Y,.Y. _, " �� ! � q+- _ . . __. �..� . . -M.��. . _ _ _ �, . . . i p . �� , � _ . c .�- ` - r, r � x 6�.a :�� -zab fr. 4 �� r #a�,d�.� � �. 'J�t#�°ri11�5-� � . �tat:. �d -S "'# w, - ` s. ,.� �ii��Y,�` � �., � �'.r,,y ��iqt�4:;� e* - _Yt �*�£�"� 4'.s¢••�, vt� Yr Y-r �. �tll'i±?#�l�f'ia�k�_ ':� . - . _ . .,� `%�. r.ri"r, 3:x e?:E. '^.ti. -: t � .. ,. ' ' _ .'r, _ ..r1:iJ - �: . �.i'%d �"�Y R' .-y" � �� " .... . t�k��-�- � � � ' �� F r � Y.'}�":. � � Y __ _ �� . . ,• �'*[ .R � 4 �� R4,w;� r ! * �,t .: ,.��.�>'�. 2.�M � r A.:� �� 2 . . �i ` �.4� "�i . �� qi 4 �Y'� �_ �� , w � �- ::� ' s } ~ r' . �� , `�1 . ! i �.. u4N75i •-'r KS1 �� • 'I � + 1, • . � r �I.. �1 1 w ' ' / � � �.:.' �K • T��, , , 'sF +� " �� "� �i. r...� �, .r< � Y � . �,� f s _._ ._�' __ ,"'_ �f♦� �i p •��„ .. ,��„ ++ '�j .q - . " t �� ' � i,�� y �� ,« —r_-. _ _ .-'�.�y'� � -L � .k < i F+�� a �. ��' i��`..'',�-, � :�x�, � 'R ,A Y __ —e �t if� {':.. `.f:,�� t� � r � � � -� ;.i • �q .. A ._ .:,,f � 'SyT��: .:�=�y ' fi' ' T. � � ' +� , : ' �, * •l �• � A � �. `y-��' .. .•y�, . . �.. t. �.,,�,- �� - i' �. . � yy� - �` � R • ,�.. �1i.• , � • , .• ;� •, ' :� ., ' - • e� M��-� ':�� .��.. .. `�e_ , �= . �'r � � - � . . ' 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.8.1 Response DR2-1 The Shadow Study for the proposed project was provided as Appendix B of the Draft EIR. The Shadow Study considers all the existing buildings surrounding the Douglas Avenue project site. The Draft EIR considers two Alternatives with a reduced height (see Master Response 3). 2.8.2 Response DR2-2 See Master Response 1 for about the Master Response to comments about the potential traffic impacts from the proposed project. 2.8.3 Response DR2-3 The concern about noise impacts is addressed below in Response DR2-3. The potential impact from dirt and dust during construction of the proposed project is addressed in Impact Air-1 on pages 3.12-14 and 3.12-15. As described in detail in Impact Air-1 the impact to the public from dust emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of control measures in the conditions for approval in the Downtown Specific Plan, including regularly watering the construction site and covering trucks that haul loose dirt or other materials. The potential impact from the release of asbestos and lead (lead-based paints) during construction of the proposed project are addressed in Impact Hazards-2 on pages 3.7-12 and 3.7- 13. As described in detail in Impact Hazards-2, the Applicant would be required to comply with federal and state laws that protect the public from being exposed to hazardous materials, including asbestos and lead. The impacts would be less than significant. The proposed building �vould be constructed 11 feet from the property line, over 15 feet from the residence at 1124 Douglas Avenue, and over 30 feet from 1126 Douglas Avenue. 2.8.4 Response DR2-4 Impact Noise-3 on page 3.10-17 of the Draft EIR identifies that the noise impact from the additional residences living at the proposed building would be less than significant because the noise that would be generated would be typical of residential areas. Impact Noise-3 also notes that the increased number of vehicle trips from residences at the proposed project would be distributed throughout the day and during peak hours and would not result in a permanent substantial noise increase. 2.8.5 Response DR2-5 Impact Utilities-2 on page 3.14-9 and 3.14-10 explains that there is sufficient water supply to meet the demands for the new residents at the proposed project. Impact Utilities-2 explains that there is sufficient capacity to treat wastewater at the Waste Water Treatment Plant that would be generated by the residents at the proposed project. Impact Utilities-2 also explains that the new building would tie in to the existing water and sewer lines. Construction of the project would not require replacement of water and sewer pipelines within Douglas Avenue. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 62 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Impact Energy Use-2 explains that the proposed project would not substantially increase the demand for energy resources and that the proposed project would incorporate energy efficient standards into construction of the proposed project. No main lines are expected to be repaired on the street. New lines will be installed for the proposed project. 2.8.6 Response DR2-6 The east driveway for the proposed project would be a shared driveway with two-way traffic and would be located between the existing building at 1124 Douglas Avenue and the proposed apartment building. 2.8.7 Response DR2-7 As shown on page 3.8-11 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project will require excavation of approximately 16 feet for an 11-foot high parking garage and a 5-foot concrete foundation. 2.8.8 Response DR2-8 See Master Response 4 for an in-depth discussion about the potential impact to the trees on the Douglas Avenue project site. 2.8.9 Response DR2-9 See Response AN-6 and AN-7 for an in-depth discussion about the American peregrine falcon. 2.8.10 Response DR2-10 The comment and concern of moving the historical home to 524 Oak Grove is noted. Impact Cultural-1 on pages 3.4-13 to 3.4-16 of the Draft EIR provides an explanation as to why the historical home at 1128 Douglas Avenue would remain historical after it has been moved to 524 Oak Grove Avenue. Page 3.4-14 of the Draft EIR explains that the proposed location at 524 Oak Grove Avenue for the relocated historical building is "more similar to the historic setting of 1128 Douglas Avenue than its current location" and that the "proposed relocation site at 524 Oak Grove Avenue meets National Register Criterion B for moved properties, that they be 'comparable to those of the historic location."' Impact Noise-1 on pages 3.10-13 and 3.10-14 explain that the relocation of the home must occur at night because the power would have to be disconnected to allow for safe demolition. The applicant would implement MM Noise-1 to minimize the impact. MM Noise-1 includes measures to reduce impacts from the power outage (see page 3.10-14). 2.8.11 Response DR2-11 As explained in Master Response 3, two alternatives were considered that reduced the height of the building and the decision on the height of the proposed building will be made by the City of Burlingame Planning Commission. � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 ?-63 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.9 DION HEFFRAN DH-1 From: - To: :.G�P�_GRuben H.�ri� Subjed: Re: Notice of Availability of a Drak Environmental Impact Report for [he Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:53:43 PM Hi Ruben I read the parking section of the EIR I think that guest parking is woefully short I recognize that space to park in the bldg is restricted. The street however is full and over parked Perhaps a provision to park in the parking adjacent to the tracks could be developed A permit similar to the limited Douglas street parking for residents may be the way to alleviate the situation Maybe a prepayment to the Caltrans authority for a period of time by the city to be repaid by allocated permits to the new residents for their guest parking Fees could be collected from the residents by the landlord then paid to the city Dion Heffran ' r-, Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 1-64 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR � � 2.9.1 Response DH-1 � See Master Response 1 for a discussion of the potential parking impacts. One parking space will be designated for guest/delivery vehicle parking. � � � � � � � � ' 1 ' , ' 1 � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.10 GERALD WEISL From: - To: CD�F_GRu�e��. N;�,,,, SubJect: Douglas Avenue Construdion Date: Friday, October 14, 2016 7:46:57 AM Dear Mr. Hurin, Regarding the proposed 29 unit building on Douglas Avenue... The Planning Commission should consider the number of bedrooms for this proposal, not merely the number of front doors. I live in 1133 Douglas Avenue, a building with 9 front doors and 18 GW-1 underground parking spaces, plus room for one or two vehicles off the street in front of our building. The proposed edifice does not provide sufficient parking as part of its current plans. Parking is already often at or beyond its limits on Douglas Avenue. �,W 2T Further, we see a modest amount of sunlight in the afternoon hours. I 1 believe this 5 story edifice will block the sun. Perhaps they can scale this down to a size more in keeping with the rest G�ti'-3 of our neighborhood and build something no more than 3 stories and include sufficient parking for the number of actual residents in the building. Thanks for your time and attention. GERALD WEISL 1133 Douglas Ave #203 Burlingame Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 < ^_ 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.10.1 Response GW-1 The number of bedrooms was used to calculate the number of parking spaces that would be considered sufficient to meet the parking demands. Appendix H of the Draft EIR provides a Focused Transportation and Parking Analysis for the proposed project. Page 5 of the Focused Transportation and Parking Analysis identifies the methodology used to calculate the number of parking spaces needed to meet the parking demands of the proposed project. The methodology used was based on the requirements in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. Title 25, Chapter 25.70.032 of the City of Burlingame Municipal Code identifies the parking requirements for duplexes, apartments, hotels, and condominiums. See Master Response 1 for further information about the impacts to parking from the proposed project. 2.10.2 Response GW-2 Appendix B of the Draft EIR provides a Shadow Study for the proposed project, which identifies the changes in shadow that would result from the construction of the proposed project. Figure 2 of the Shadow Study shows the shadow patterns of the proposed building. The residence at 1133 Douglas Avenue is located across the street from the Douglas Avenue project site. As shown in Figure 2 of the Shadow Study, the building shadow would not cross the street or affect the residence at 1133 Douglas Avenue. 2.10.3 Response GW-3 The preference for a building no more than three stories is noted. The comment regarding the lack of sufficient parking for the proposed project is noted. See Master Response 1 regarding the comment about parking and Master Response 3 regarding the comment about the height of the proposed project. 1 1 ' ' 1 r, Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.11 JOHN ROOT ��C�ivE� OCT 14 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNlNG DIV. John Root Comments for October 11, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting on Draft EIR for Proposed Project at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue We live at 1133 Douglas Avenue, directly across the street from the proposed project. My wife Carolyn and I have lived there for four years and we have lived in Burlingame for thirty nine (39) and I think we have a good, long term perspective, Over those years we have stayed pretty tuned in to JR-1 things going on in town. I am aware ofthe Downtown Specific Plan and was involved in some of the early citizen discussions as a member of the CAC. I don't believe the project, as proposed, is in the spirit of the Downtown Specific Plan that was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. A few specific concerns with the Draft EIR 1.Five stories is iust too tall. Buildings are a variety of heights on Douglas Avenue, our building is three floors, the tallest on Douglas Avenue. And the condominium at the corner 1R_2 of Bellevue, Douglas and Primrose is four stories with the top floor set back I guess there are a few residential buildings that are five stories but they are few and far between. We favor Alternative Three which will soften the impact on the area as opposed to the proposed project. 2.Street Parkin� The notion there will only be a slight increase in street parking just isn't correct. 'I'he Draft EIR notes there could be a spillover of 5-6 guest vehicles that could likely be accommodated within the overall neighborhood if not on JR-3 Douglas Avenue. That just doesn't sound good to me. Surrounding streets tend to be just as crowded as Douglas if not more so. This is a neighborhood that's very close to downtown with the charm of a residential neighborhood. It's a special feeling. We expect to have more congestion than an area with just single family homes but parking cheek by jowl shouldn't happen just to �, accommodate this sort of development. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR . February 2017 � f < 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR � � z ' � ' 3.Guest Parkin�, The project doesn't consider guest parking except to retreat to street parking. Our condominium has a circular driveway that will accommodate two cars. I just can't emphasize enough how convenient that is for guests, deliveries, tradesmen, gardeners and the post office Under most circumstances our JR-3 Suests don't have to wonder where they can park; they know space will cont. almost always be there for them. Landscaping softens the driveway area and the front of our building is quite attractive. JR-4 Double parking isn't completely eliminated because of larger vehicles like UPS and FEDEX but it is certainly markedly reduced. It is a great convenience and I believe really helps with traffic and double parking. 4. White Zone — Delivery Vehicles The Draft EIR recites ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) standards and guidelines that bolster the idea that delivery vehicles to the proposed 29 unit project will have minimal effect on traffic. I think the ITE standards and guidelines are outdated. Even now, the line up of vehicles delivering packages from online orders is staggering at times, particularly during holidays. The fact that Douglas Avenue seems to be the unofficial truck route to and from downtown and Mollie Stones adds to the congestion. The addition of 29 units, 67 residents, all ordering online, will certainly have a significant impact. A white zone might be good but takes parking away so it does have drawbacks. There must be other solutions. The important thing is for there to be an acknowledgement that delivery vehicles will indeed have a significant impact and I'm not sure the Draft EIR paints the proper picture . 5. Shadow Studv The shadow study does not measure shadows past 3pm. Later than 3pm is JR-5 �,�,hen the 1133 Douglas building could be impacted and I think the shadow study should include a later time of day. Douglas Avenue Mult�-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 1 ,;`i 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 6. HeadliEht Glare Headlight glare from vehicles exiting the project could have an impact on JR-� the lower level of the 1133 Douglas building. The Draft EIR doesn't address this and I think it should. 7. Worker Parking IR-� What are the plans for worker parking over the 15-17 months of construction? In Conclusion In total I would say we're lukewarm about the project. Given the options JR_8 presented, Option Three is our choice. We're very disappointed to see two, one hundred year old homes disappear which add so much to this neighborhood. A few other items of note: - Tree Protection The tree protection measures called out for certainly seems extensive JR-9 and complete. The question really is how well the protection measures will be observed and enforced. Loss of any of the protected trees would significantly detract from the overall project. JR-1o� - The 29 unit aroiect will have a population capacity of 67 residents with 34 parking spaces. - 500 dump trucks loads na,32 tons ner load is a lot of heavy traffic. JR-11 Douglas Avenue was repaved 3 years ago. Will there be any extraordinary paving damage or deterioration? - If there is overlaa in the nlanned construction of the single familv 1R-12 residence on this block and the proposed project there could be additional impacts that should be addressed. - Contact with Develoaer We have had little contact with the developer; one time about 18 iR-1 � months ago. Keeping us apprised of progress and developments is important and I think will help the process along. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 f ' ., 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR l � 2.11.1 Response JR-1 'The comment that the author does not believe the proposed project is in in the spirit of the IDowntown Specific Plan is noted. Impact Aesthetics-3 on pages 3.1-14 to 3.1-17 addresses the potential impact from the project not fitting with the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood and thereby not being "in the spirit of the Downtown Specific Plan." This analysis is conducted by identifying all the potential inconsistencies with design standards established by City of Burlingame policies, goals, and objectives, including those in the Downtown Specific Plan (see Table 3.1-2). T'he final decision about the design of the proposed project will be made by the Planning Commission. 2.11.2 Response JR-2 The preference for Alternative 3 is noted. See Master Response 3 for further discussion about the potential impact from the height of the proposed project. 2.1 1.3 Response JR-3 T'he proposed parking is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and City policies. See Master Response 1 for further discussion of the potential impacts to parking from the proposed project. The proposed project was revised after the Draft EIR to include one dedicated guest/delivery parking space. 2.11.4 Response JR-4 See Master Response 2 for the Master Response to comments related to the potential traffic and parking impacts from deliveries from the proposed project. The comments regarding the white zone for delivery zones is noted. The proposed project was revised after the Draft EIR to include one dedicated guest/delivery parking space. 2.11.5 Response JR-5 The shadow study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines in the Downtown Specific Plan. The plan suggests at a minimum shadow diagrams should be prepared for 9am, 12pm, and 3pm on March 21st, June 21st, September 21st, and December 215� (approximately corresponding to the solstices and equinoxes) to identify extreme conditions and trends. The shadow study showed that the shadows generally fall to the northeast, rather than southeast toward 1133 Douglas Ave. Shadows are most likely to fall towards 1133 Douglas Avenue around the 2151 of June. 2.11.6 Response JR-b T`he existing conditions include headlights from cars exiting from the project parcels from at- grade parking areas. The additional number of cars that would exit the property with headlights on would not be a substantial source of new light or glare. The existing street trees, Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 I7i 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR landscaping, and passing and parked cars will all serve to block headlights exiting the project parcel. 2.1 1.7 Response JR-7 Section 2.6.4: Construction Workforce on page 2-9 of the Draft EIR states that "Construction worker parking would be identified with other construction details before building permits are issued. A construction management plan would be prepared for the proposed project." MM TRAFFIC-1 requires that the Construction Management Plan provide "worker parking off site and generally off neighborhood streets, with shuttles or other transportation as needed to transport workers to the site" (see page 3.13-11 of the Draft EIR). 2.1 1.8 Response JR-8 The comment that the author feels lukewarm about this project, that he prefers Alternative 3, and that he is disappointed to see the demolition of the two houses on Douglas Avenue is noted. 2.1 1.9 Response JR-9 See Master Response 4 for responses to comments about the potential impact to the trees on the Douglas Avenue project site. CEQA requires that the City implement a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure that mitigation measures, including tree protection measures, are implemented. 2.1 1.10 Response JR-10 The comment that the 29-unit project will have a population capacity of 67 residents and 34 parking spaces is noted. T'he project was revised after publication of the Draft EIR to include 27 units with a capacity of 62 residents and 34 parking spaces with one parking space dedicated for guests/delivery vehicle parking. 2.1 1.1 1 Response JR-1 1 It is unknown whether the use of dump trucks would result in the paving damage or deterioration. As a condition of approval for the building permit if the project is approved, the Department of Public Works (DPW) will require that the applicant provide the DPW with a video showing the condition of the street frontage prior to construction. After construction has been completed DPW will compare the post-construction condition of the street frontage with the pre-construction condition. DPW will determine if repaving would be required depending on the condition of the street frontage after construction. . 2.1 1.12 Response JR-12 Comment noted. An existing one-story single family home will be replaced with a new two- story single family dwelling on Douglas Avenue. The application for this project was submitted on May 9, 2016 and the Planning Commission approved the project on July 11, 2016. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 , �, 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Because the cumulative project would only be making modifications to an existing single-family home, it is unlikely that it would induce substantial population growth. This cumulative project would, therefore, not significantly affect the cumulative, operational impacts. The addition of this project would not change the conclusions about cumulative construction impacts, including air quality, noise, and traffic, because the single-family home is likely to be constructed before the proposed project begins construction. This cumulative project would be required to reduce construction emissions, similar to the proposed project. The cumulative project would follow the same construction noise ordinance as the proposed project. The cumulative noise impact would remain significant and unavoidable because the proposed project would exceed the noise threshold during construction (see page 3.10-20). This cumulative project would not contribute to a cumulative traffic impact because the cumulative project, like the proposed project, would be required to prepare a Construction Management Plan that requires coordination to avoid an aggregation of traffic impacts (see page 3.13-21). 2.11.13 Response JR-13 The comment about maintaining contact with the developer is noted. MM NOISE-1 and NOISE- 3 require the applicant to communicate with the community regarding moving the historic house and designating a Community Liaison for construction activities. LJ � ' ' ' ' 1 , � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 Z�73 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR This page is intentionally left blank. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 2-%:1 3 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT EIR u � �� 3 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT EIR 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents revisions that have been made to the Draft EIR text. These revisions provide corrections, additions, or clarifications as requested by a specific comment. The text revisions are organized by resource topics, for which revisions were requested. EIR. Sin�le underlined text represents language that has been added to the Draft EIR; *^��n �}r�'_�^}'�r^��o has been deleted from the Draft EIR. 3.2 DRAFT EIR REVISIONS The proposed project was revised after publication of the Draft EIR and in response to public comments to reduce the number of units from 29 to 27, reduce the number of parking spaces from 34 to 33, and designate the remaining parking space for guest/delivery vehicle parking. These revisions apply globally to the Draft EIR. 3.2.1 Section 2: Project Description Page 2-1 is changed as follows: Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc., representing the owner (collectively "the Applicant"), has submitted an application to the City of Burlingame (City) Department of Community Development to demolish two single family houses and a 4-unit apartment building on two adjacent lots, and construct a 27 �9-unit apartment building. Page 2-7 is changed as follows: The proposed apartment building would have 5 stories and 27 � dwelling units in a mix of studio, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom apartments. The anticipated occupancy of the building is 62 � persons. The total building square footage is shown below: � I Garage 1 St Floor 2�d - 4m FIOOrS 11,150 4, 239A�R 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ___..__. 22, 755 5r� Floor 7,144�5�4 Building Total 45.33045;�9 Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 ;i 3 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT EIR Page 2-8 is changed as follows: The square footage of the proposed units is shown below: 751 793 1,116 892 797 781 890 503 1,159 �4 1, 234 1,413 1,907 1,149 Total 1 1 34 34 34 34 34 3 3 � 1 1 1 1 27� Average Unit Size 751 793 3, 3484,-464 2,676�� 2, 391 �� 2, 343 �,P;�^ 2, 670�--5�9 1, 509 3,477 a-; 654 1, 234 1,413 1 907 1, 409 25,9212�� 960�A9 The project would include 33 �4 full-size parking spaces on-site. Most of those spaces would be in an underground garage. Twelve at-grade spaces would be located at the rear of the building. The Downtown Specific Plan does not require guest parking; however, one guest/delivery space would be provided on-site. Page 2-9 is changed as follows: Construction activities are proposed to occur between the hours of 8:00�:�9 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Construction may also occur from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, and . .. . . no construction would occur on Sundays and holidays, as specified in City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 1930 (amendin�Municipal Code 18.07.110�, . 3.2.2 Section 3.1: Aesthetics Table 3.1-2 on page 3.1-15 of the Draft EIR has been changed as follows: Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR . February 2017 3 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT EIR � �� Table 3.1-2 General Plan Proposed Project Consistency with City of Burlingame Plans and Policies -- -- _ _ _ _ Community Development Goal II: To maintain and enhance the identity of the City and encourage a maximum sense of identification by residents with the City, _ .. .. _ c, Establish a pattern of dominance and subordination in Potentially Inconsistent. The height important visual features; create harmony with diversity. and bulk of the structure as proposed dominate the site, and adds one multistory, dominant type of structure on the street and removes two subordinate, two-story single-family structures. The proiect, consisting of a four-story fa�ade with a stepped back fiffh storv, contributes a dominant structure and removes two subordinate structures but still allows the street to retain the diverse pattern as there are two-, three-, and four- story structures on the street, d. Create distinctive visual qualities - a Burlingame image Partially Inconsistent, While the (analyze existing visual qualities and build on the best of these). structure has distinctive visual qualities such as horizontal wood sidinq on the ctround floor and some architectural fenestration, individual floor patterns are repeated above the second story. _ __ _ _ f. Use trees of appropriate size and character as a design Consistent. Street trees will conform to framework to enhance a sense of identity. City specifications, Downtown Specific Plan Goal S-l: Improve the streetscape, particularly at the pedestrian scale. Policy S-1.3: Streetscapes should reflect Burlingame's designation as a"tree city." Trees should be planted throughout the downtown as an integral parf of the streetscape, and mature street trees should be preserved whenever possible. _ __ __ �,,,-,,,,�;�+o„+, Consistent, Ground level treatment v�ri#k� consistina of a wide entrance walks, benches, and water features �ve�l� add diversity to existing street experience and improves the streetscape at the pedestrian scale. Height of building we�ld dominates a sense of pedestrian scale, but it is set back 18 to 31 feet from the front propertv line. Consistent. The existing trees will be protected and new trees will be planted. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 3 :i 3 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT EIR Goal D-1: Protect and preserve historic character. Policy D-1.1; Ensure that new construction fits into the context and scale of the existing downtown. Goal D-3: Preserve and enhance small-town scale with walkable, pedestrian-scaled, landscaped streets. Policy D-3.2: Evaluate development in the Downtown Area that is proposed to be taller than surrounding structures (i.e., over 40 feet) for potential to create new shadows or shade on public and/or quasi-public open spaces and major pedestrian routes. 5.3.1. Architectural Diversity _ _ Design buildings to maintain general compatibility with the neighborhood. Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural styles. Consistent. Height and bulk of building are similar to other existinq multifamily structures on the street and the Downtown Specific Plan anticipates similar heights, up to a maximum of 75 feet. Alona the front fa�ade, the top floor is set back 10 feet from the rest of the buildinq_providinq a sense of a four-story buildinq when viewed from nearbv locations. Consistent. Height of building may dominate a sense of pedestrian scale but will maintain the walkable, landscaped street. Consistent. Shadow study provided in Appendix B. Consistent. The existing neighborhood is generally composed of two- to four- story structures below 50 feet in height, but is generally compatible with the surrounding structures in mass and articulation. Along the front fa�ade, the top floor is set back 10 feet from the rest of the building, qrovidinq a sense of a four-story buildina when viewed from nearby locations, Partiallv Inconsistent. �e Although the existing building is approximately 20-25 feet taller than any other building in the block, the proposed proiect is consistent with the adiacent modern stvle buildina and with other existing buildinqs on the block characterized by simple massincl, flat walis and repetitive fenestration. Along the front fa�ade, the top floor is set back 10 feet from the rest of the buildinq, providinq a sense of a four-story buildina when viewed from nearbv locations. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 ss 3 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT EIR �, � � Maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style used. 5.3.2.1 Entrances: Primary pedestrian access to all ground-level uses should be from the sidewalk along the public street. Entrances should be clearly defined features of front facades. 5.3.2.1 Architectural Compatibility __ _ Massing and street facades shall be designed to create a residential scale. Articulation, setbacks, and materials should minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest, Partiallv Inconsistent. At a height of 57 feet, plus rooffop appurtenances and with repetitive design elements, the building exceeds a human scale as seen from the immediate neighborhood. However, human- scale elements, such as a front entry element, a pedestrian walk, water feature and benches are provided at street level, and individual balconies are provided on the upper floors. Consistent. The primary pedestrian access to the proposed building is from a pedestrian walkwav that connects to the Douqlas Avenue sidewalk. The entryway is clearlv defined by the pedestrian walkwav to the front door, _ _ _ Partiallv Inconsistent. Continuous repetition of elements on the upper stories is not consistent with enhancing visual interest and creating a sense of human scale, however this desictn element exists on multifamilv residential buildincts on this block. The proposed proiect provides human- scale elements at the street level, such as a front entry element, a pedestrian walk, water feature, and benches, and on the upper levels individual balconies provide residential scale and character, _ _ Partially Inconsistent. �#e Although the design of the upper stories is repetitive of the lower levels and ea-a-siag4e the building is viewed as a single large mass, articulation is provided by wak of using a different material on the ground level (horizontal wood sidina), incorporating balconies throu _qhout the buildincl, horizontal sun shades above windows,projectina eaves, setting back the front riqht corner of the buildinq, and articulatina the walis alona the front and left sides of the buildinq. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 3 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT EIR 5.3.2.1 Architectural Design Consistency: Facades should include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass. All exposed sides of a building should be designed with the same level of care and integrity, Facades should have a variation of both positive space (massing) and negative space (plazas, inset doorways, and windows). 5.3.2.2 Ground Level Treatment: Residential development may have a finished floor elevation up to 5 feet above sidewalk level to provide more interior privacy for residents. Entry porches or stoops along the street are encouraged to bridge this change in elevation and connect these units to the sidewalk to minimize any physical separation from the street level. The street-level frontage should be visually interesting with frequent unit entrances and clear orientation to the street 5.3.4.2 Windows Building walis should be accented by well-proportioned openings that provide relief, detail and variation on the facade, Windows should be inset generously from the building wall to create shade and shadow detail. Reflective glass is undesirable because of its tendency to create uncomfortable glare conditions and a visual barrier. Where residential uses are adjacent to each other, windows should be placed with regard to any open spaces or windows on neighboring buildings so as to protect the privacy of residents 5.3.4.3 Materials: Building materials should be richly detailed to provide visual interest. The use of materials that are reflected in the historic architecture present is encouraged. Metal siding and large expanses of stucco or wood siding are also to be avoided. Roofing materials and accenting features such as canopies, cornices, tile accents, etc. should also offer color variation. Residential building materials should be made of quality details such as wrought iron, wood framed windows, wood brackets and tile roofs. Consistent, A front entry element, a pedestrian walk, water feature and benches are provided at street level, and individual balconies are provided on the upper floors to provide human scale and to provide a variation of both positive and neaative space. Consistent. The entrance to the proposed buildinq is off-set from the street by the pedestrian walkwa� which provides privacv for residents, Landscape features and hardscape features, includincl a concrete wall and wooden planter/fence also provide privacy to residents. The proposed buildinq is connected to the sidewalk by the pedestrian walkway, which provides clear orientation to the street, The street-level frontaqe is made visually interestinq by the pedestrian walkway, water feature, and benches. Partiallv Inconsistent. Althouqh �window patterns are not varied within facades, the project does provide varied window sizes and grid patterns that provide relief to buildinq walls. !^^^�,rConsistent, Aluminum window systems €I�# are inset approximately four inches from the Lvi## building walls. Consistent, Theproposed building does not include reflective . Ic� ass. Consistent. The building would be separated from the neighboring residences by driveways, walkways, and landscaping. Inconsistent, Large expanses of stucco and wood siding proposed. No wood framed windows. . The roof is flat roof and lacks accenting features such as canopies, cornices, or tile accents. However, stucco and wood sidinq, flat roofs and metal/aluminum windows, are present on existinq multifamily residential buildings on this block. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 ; ,<, 3 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF TNE DRAFT EIR _--, 5.4.1.1 Massing and Scale Transitions: Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to lower can be done through different building sizes or massing treatments that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses. Massing and orientation of new buildings should respect the massing of neighboring structures by varying the massing within a project, stepping back upper stories, reducing mass by composition of solids and voids, and varying sizes of elements to transition to smaller scale buildings. 5.4.1.1 Privacy; Privacy of neighboring structures should be maintained with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties, minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties, and limiting sun and shade impacts on abutting properties. Burlingame Urban Forest Master Plan Partiallv Inconsistent. Massing dees--r�e# , has only moderate composition of solids and voids #�ee�e�ea#�-to transition to smaller scale buildings, Steppinq back the u�per floor alonqthe front of the buildina varies the massinq and hel�s to transition to smaller scale buildincas, Inconsistent, Windows and upper floor balconies not reflective of minimizing sight lines into surrounding neighboring properties. The proposed 5-story building would shade an approximately 80 percent greater area than existing structures on the properties. Steppinq back floors would reduce views to neighborinq properties and reduce shading_ Sycamore theme tree. Consistent. No sycamore trees would be removed from the Doualas Avenue project site, Burlingame Zoning Regulations: Chapter 25.29 R-4 Residential District No building or structure shall be constructed in an R-4 district which exceeds six (6) stories or seventy-five (75) feet in height _.. _ _ The maximum lot coverage for all buildings and structures, including balconies, stairs, roof overhangs exceeding twenty- four (24) inches, trellises and improvements which exceed thirty (30) inches in height, shall be fiffy (50) percent for interior lots and sixty (60) percent for corner lots. Consistent. The proposed building is 5 stories and 60 feet in heiqht and thus does not exceed the heic�ht limits of 6 stories and 75 feet. Consistent. The proposed project lot is an interior lot and has a lot coveraae of 49.40 percent see paae A 1,0 of the proposed proiect site plan .� proposed project does not exceed the maximum lot coveracae of 50 percent. _ _ 3.2.3 Section 3.11: Population and Housing Table 3.11-2 on page 3.11-2 of the Draft EIR has been changed as follows: Table 3.1 1-2 San Mateo County Housing Estimates and Projections 257,837' 277,200 286,790 296,280 305,390 315,100 0.01% 4.9% City of 13,0273 13,620 14,230 14,890 15,520 16,170 .05% - 0.8% 7.6%-�-°,6 Burlingame Source: �ABAG 2009, 2California Department of Finance 2016 �9-�5 and 3U.S. Census Bureau 2015 Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 3��7 3 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT EIR Page 3.11-5 of the EIR is changed as follows: The demolition activities and the movement of the historical home would result in the displacement of the current occupants, which are estimated to be 22 people (19 on Douglas Avenue and 3 on Oak Grove Avenue). There is existing housing in the City that could accommodate this small number of displaced persons. T`he City has a vacancy rate of 7_6 � percent, which is sufficient to accommodate persons displaced by the proposed project (California Department of Finance 2016 �). The proposed project would ultimately create more housing through the construction of 27 � apartments that could house up to 62 � people. The proposed project would add 27 � units in the City and would help the City fulfill its housing needs obligation of 863 units for the 2015 to 2023 planning period. The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. The impact would be less than significant. The proposed project would have a net increase in the City's population of approximately 43 4� people. The addition of 43 4� people represents an approximately 0.2 percent increase in the City population. The City is projected to grow one percent annually (see Table 3.11-1). A 0.2 percent addition to the population is not substantial and is within the City's one percent annual growth rate. The proposed project's addition to the City's population is less than significant Page 3.11-5 of the EIR is changed as follows: Housing development projects in the City are in varying stages, and new housing is constructed as some older units are demolished. In the Downtown Specific Plan area, multi-family housing units are replacing single-family houses and thereby providing more housing units to meet the City's projected housing needs. The City currently has an overall vacancy rate of 7.6 � percent which is adequate to accommodate displaced residents from the proposed project and other projects that may displace residents at the same time. Section 3.11.7: References on page 3.11-6 of the EIR is changed as follows: California De�artment of Finance. 2016. "E-5 Population and Housin� Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2016 with 2010 Census Benchmark." ��T . � . � r . � � � � '. 3.2.4 Section 3.12: Public Services and Recreation Table 3.12-1 has been updated with the new enrollment data, as shown below. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 3 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT EIR l � McKinley Elementary 5832 342 384 386 482 522 519 School _ Burlingame Intermediate 1,1763 837 889 922 953 1,004 1,018 School Burlingame High School 1,3504 1,360 1,314 1,352 1,306 1,316 1,339 Source� �California Deparfment of Education 2015, �G. Helliec. perso,�al communication, Planninc7 Division, personal communi��atic,n, °P. Chavez, personal commur,ication "Califomia Department of Education 2016a An additional reference has been added to Section 3.12.7: References on page 3.12-6 of the EIR: California De�artment of Education. 2016a. K-12 Pubic School Enrollment for Mckinley Elementar� School, Burlingame Intermediate School, Burlingame High School. Accessed November 16, 2016. htt�://dc�.cde.ca.�ov/dataquest/datac�uest.as� 3.2.5 Section 3.13: Transportation and Traffic Page 3.13-12 has been changed as follows: The proposed project at 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue would consist of 27 � apartment units. Based on ITE daily and peak hour trip generation for multi-family (apartment) units, the project would be expected to generate 180 �9-3 daily trips with 14 �5 AM peak hour trips and 17 � PM peak hour trips as shown in Table 3.13-54. The net increase in proposed project trips would represent the difference between existing residential uses on-site and proposed project trip generation. As shown in Table 3.13-5, this net increase in site vehicle trips would amount to 134 � daily trips with 10 � AM peak hour trips (3 in, 7� out) and 12 �-3 PM peak hour trips (8 � in, 4 out) for proposed project uses." � � Table 3.13-5 Proposed and Net New Project Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue Residential Project Land Use Unit Rate Category Apartment du 6.65 ■ _ .. Project Uses Trips Apartment 27� 180� Proposed Project Trips 180�93 Total In % Out qo Total In qo 0.51 20 80 0.62 65 Total In 14�-5 3 14a-a 3 Out % 35 Out Total In Out 11� 17� 11� b 11-a-� 17-3� 11� b Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 Table 3.12-1 Enrollment Rates and Capacities for Schools Serving the Proposed Project 3 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT EIR Existing Project Trips (46) (4) (0) (4) (5) (3) (2) Net New Project Trips 134a4� 10� 3 7� 12�3-3 8� 4 Source: Institute of Transportat�on Engineers QTE), Trip Generatior,, 9� Edition, Sin�le-Family Detached Housing (#210) and Apcartr7�e,nt (#2'10), 2012. Page 3.13-15 has been changed as follows: Table 3.13-7 Proposed Project Residential Components/Parking Rates •. . - .. . . .. 3 studio units @ 1 space/unit 3 14 � 1-bedroom units @ 1 space/unit 14� __. 9� 2-bedroom units @ 1,5 spaces/unit 13.5�9-� 1 3-bedroom unit@ 2 spaces/unit 2 29 units 32.5 = 33 �-�4 As calculated in Table 3.13-7 above, the proposed project would require 33 �4 off-street parking spaces, which would exactly match the proposed parking supply and leave one space available for designated guest/deliver� vehicle �arkin�. Page 3.13-17 has been changed as follows: The proposed project would not generate large numbers of trips that would cause a significant impact to the level of service at intersections in the project area see the Downtown S�ecific Plan Traffic Analysis for a full discussion). The proposed project's impact on intersection LOS would not be significant. 3.2.6 Section 4: Alterr�atives Page 4-S of the Draft EIR has been changed as follows: Population and Housing Impacts to population and housing under Alternative 1 would be similar as for the proposed project. Under this alternative the number of units would be the same, but the unit breakdown would be different. This alternative would be expected to add a total of 61 persons. Taking into consideration the 19 existing residents, this alternative would result in a net increase of 42 4-� individuals, which is a very small percentage of the City's projected one percent annual growth rate. This alternative would not induce substantial population growth in the City. Impacts on population and housing under Alternative 1 would be less than significant. Public Services and Recreation Impacts to public services and recreation under Alternative 1 would be similar as for the Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 : i0 3 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT EIR proposed project. Under this alternative, a total of 42 4-� additional residents would be added to the existing population. Similar to the project, the City's services, schools, and parks would accommodate the additional residents without an adverse impact on services. Impacts to public services and recreation under Alternative 1 would be less than significant. � � � LJ � � , � � � , � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 3 ii 3 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT EIR � MR This page is intentionally left blar2k. U � LJ � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR . February 2017 .j i .- 4 REFERENCES d � R�FFERENGES California Department of Education. 2016a. K-12 Pubic School Enrollment for Mckinlei� Elementary School, Burlingame Iritermediate School, Burlingame High School. Accessed November 16, 2016. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dataquest.asp. —. 2016b. K-12 Pubic School Enrollment for Burlingame High School, San Mateo High Scliool, and Aragon High Shcool. Accessed November 15, 2016. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dataquest.asp. California Department of Finance. 2015. "E-5 Population and housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2015 with 2010 Census Benchmark." California Department of Finance. 2016. "E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2016 with 2010 Census Benchmark." California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. About t{ie CNDDB. October 21. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/About. Chavez, Pamela, interview by Leo Mena. 2015. Personal Commuriication (August 8). Chew, Maritsa, interview by Leo Mena. 2016. Personal Communication (November 15). City of Burlingame. 2016. "2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Burlingame." City of Burlingame. 2011. "Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, Chapter 7.0, Circulation and Parking." Commute.org. 2016. "FY 2016-2017 Work Plan." June. Accessed February 2, 2017. http://www.commute. org/files/documents/FY2016-2017_Work_Plan. pdf. Omni Means. 2015. "Focused Transportation and Parking Analysis Douglas Avenue Multi- Family Residential Development Project." The Trust for Public Land. 2015. "2015 City Park Facts." April. https://www. tpl.org/sites/default/files/files_upload/2015-City-Park-Facts-Report.pdf. Wilbur Smith Associates. 2009. "Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Memorandum." � � Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 a.� 4 REFERENCES This page is intentionnlly left blank. Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Project Final EIR • February 2017 �t �� 1 ' ll APPENDIX A: � � MAILING LIST OF INDIVIDUALS WHO RECEIVED THE �,�,�ar�� :�,� 4�,� s e� r rA� �� 1 ' � � l-I , �J ' ' ' 1 1 1 1128-1132 Douglas Ave and 524 Oak Grove Ave apns 029.132.180 and 190 and 029.083.010 300' radius noticing list 161 notices - 09.06.16 mailing APN OWNER NAME MAILING ADDRESS1 MAILING CITY MAILI MAILING ZIP 029131270 1400 Floribunda Partners 3490 California St #206 San Francisco CA 94118 029132220 500 Primrose Association 500 Primrose Rd Burlin ame CA 94010-3907 029132120 509 California Drive Llc 851 Buriwa Road #710 Burlin ame CA 94010 029162280 Adams Timoth W Tr 486 Chatham Rd Burlin ame CA 94010-2712 106770060 Ahlbach Donald M Tr Po Box 1377 San Mateo CA 94401 029082010 Alviso Robert F Tr 540 Oak Grove Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-2749 029083070 Arena James G Tr 1540 Hoover Ave Burlin ame CA 94010 029162040 Ashizawa Yoshiko Tr 65 Fairwa Dr Dal Ci CA 94015-1215 105410010 Asovskaya Anna 1121 Dou las Avenue #101 Burlin ame CA 94010 029164260 Atkinson Jean S Tr 2344 Hale Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 123560010 Barnett Thomas Winterton Tr 2631 Folkestone Wa W Vancover BC V753H-8 029163040 Batchelor Stuart A Tr 475 Cumberland Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2720 029133290 Bautista Justin & Julie Trs Et AI 624 Dorchester Rd San Mateo CA 94402 106770090 Bechtol Beth Sheba 2303 Mornin side Cir Santa Rosa CA 95405 123560050 Behar Joseph Tr 512 Primrose Road #301 Burlin ame CA 94010-3907 106770050 Bilimoria Zal 1210 Bellevue Ave A t 305 Burlin ame CA 94010-4030 029082030 Blekis Alfred & Rudite D Trs 535 Francisco Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2722 108980040 Bordin Trust 201 Chadbourne Ave #320 Millbrae CA 94030 029164010 Bo d Michael F Tr 503 Oak Grove Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-2728 029133140 Burlin ame Chamber Of Commerce 417 California Drive Burlin ame CA 94010-6027 029132110 Burlin ame Ventures Llc Po Box 14045 Oakland CA 94614 029082070 Camozzi Robert Tr 519 Francisco Bivd Burlin ame CA 94010-2722 108140030 Cannon John M 1244 Bellevue Ave #5 Burlin ame CA 94010 106770130 Carreon Maria Lourdes Tr 1210 Bellevue #405 Burlin ame CA 94010-4059 029082110 Castro Salvatore & Nellie S 1002 Croatia Ct Roseville CA 94661 029133110 Cerelli John 729 Farrin don Ln Burlin ame CA 94010 108140010 Chiaro Vincent J Tr 1244 Bellevue Ave Apt 3 Burlin ame CA 94010-4040 106770140 Chin Nanc Tr 472 Dellbrook Avenue San Francisco CA 94131 029132140 Chinn S Ivia J Tr 2751 Summit Drive Burlin ame CA 94010 029112400 Ci Of Burlin ame 501 Primrose Rd Burlin ame CA 94010-3906 029151280 Cit Of Burlin ame 501 Primrose Rd Burlin ame CA 94010-3906 123560060 Cohn Carol n L 512 Primrose Rd #302 Burlin ame CA 94010-3907 029132020 Constantino Paul J 1169 Broadwa Burlin ame CA 94010 029164240 Cortese Michael J Tr 470 Cumberland Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2721 029082020 Dambra Allen Louis 539 Francisco Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-0000 106760050 De Voto Jerome D Tr 1210 Bellevue Ave #204 Burlin ame CA 94010-4059 106770100 Dea Rachelle 1210 Bellevue Ave #402 Burlin ame CA 94010 029082090 Deus Halide Tr 511 Francisco Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2722 105410060 Dimaio Joseph Tr 131 EI Paseo Millbrae CA 94030 029082120 Dittes Maril n D Tr Po Box 1306 Millbrae CA 94030-2832 029083020 Domenici Robert A 515 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 106770020 Dou las Alexander D 1210 Bellevue Ave A t 302 Burlin ame CA 94010-4030 029164250 Drumn Richard H 85 Spruce St Millbrae CA 94030-2028 029131230 Dubu Inc Po Box 151 Burlin ame CA 94011-0151 029132050 E an Anthon J& Carol A Trs 1007 Jasmine Cir EI Dorado Hills CA 95762 029163250 Ensi n Lucy K& James R 474 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2725 029082060 Evans Glen Britton lii 523 Francisco Drive Burlin ame CA 94010-2722 106760060 Field Ste hen A Tr 275 Eucal tus Ave Hillsborou h CA 94010-6603 029133100 Franco Alba Tr 1105 Dou las Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-3904 106770030 Frolik James J Tr 2315 Sk farm Dr Hillsborou h CA 94010 108970030 Fu itt Carroll T Tr 1133 Dou las Ave #3 Burlin ame CA 94010-3993 1/4 1128-1132 Douglas Ave and 524 Oak Grove Ave apns 029.132.180 and 190 and 029.083.010 300' radius noticing list 161 notices - 09.06.16 mailing 029112320 G W Williams Co 3190 Clearview Wa Ste 200 San Mateo CA 94402-3751 029131200 Galli Anthon Edward 1206 Floribunda Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-3819 029164270 Gan ul Gautam M 482 Cumberland Drive Burlin ame CA 94010 029163010 Gibson Joan E S Tr P O Box 4503 Stateline NV 89449-4503 029133130 Good Keith Tr 1437 Bernal Ave Burlin ame CA 94010 106770010 Hale Chellis F 1210 Bellevue Ave Apt 301 Burlin ame CA 94010-4030 029082050 Hamilton Christopher E 527 Francisco Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2722 029132080 Hansen Kenneth H& H M Trs 1205 Floribunda Ave Apt 1 Burlin ame CA 94010-3851 029132200 Heffran Dion Thomas Tr 1134 Dou las Ave Burlin ame CA 94010 106760040 Hi uera Maril n Dobbs 1210 Bellevue Ave Apt 203 Burlin ame CA 94010-4030 029082210 Hill Ronald J Tr 532 Oak Grove Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-2749 029163050 Hor an John M Tr 471 Cumberland Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2720 029082180 Horny Lucia E Tr 520 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2727 029083040 Hutar John M 505 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 106770160 Iracki William J Tr 224 17th Ave San Francisco CA 94121-2311 029083050 Iwamura Audre T Tr 415 42nd Ave San Mateo CA 94403 029133120 Kafka Karen Tr 1101 Dou las Ave Burlin ame CA 94010 108140020 Kaufman Jeffre S& June H Trs 1244 Bellevue Ave # 4 Burlin ame CA 94010 108970020 Kearne Doroth L Tr 1133 Dou las Ave #103 Burlin ame CA 94010-3993 108970010 Kenned Mar aret Tr 1133 Dou las Ave # 101 Burlin ame CA 94010 029163030 Kern David Geor e Tr 479 Cumberland Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2720 029162050 Kiewlich Daniel 471 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2724 123560020 Kilbrid e Thomas M Tr 512 Primrose Road #102 Burlin ame CA 94010 108150010 Kilfoil Donna W Tr 1244 Bellevue Avenue #7 Burlin ame CA 94010 106770150 Koo Pauline C 1970 N Altadena Dr Pasadena CA 91107 029162260 Krumins Aleks J 478 Chatham Rd Burlin ame CA 94010-2712 029131210 Kunz Gerald E& Ma J Trs 723 Laurelwood Dr San Mateo CA 94403-4029 106760020 La Pedis Joan K Tr 1210 Bellevue Ave Apt 201 Burlin ame CA 94010-4030 108130010 Lauritzen Karen E Tr 1244 Bellevue Ave Apt 1 Burlin ame CA 94010-4040 029164030 Lee Suen Fai 485 Bloomfield Rd Burlin ame CA 94010 029082040 Lenardon Robert G& W M Trs 531 Francisco Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2722 029132040 Leun Ton Tr 1325 Cabrillo Avenue Burlin ame CA 94010-3818 106760030 Li Charles C 1210 Bellevue Avenue #202 Burlin ame CA 94010 029132130 Lim Jun Won Tr 946 Garrit Way Santa Clara CA 95054 105410030 Liu Hen i Tr 2522 40th Avenue San Francisco CA 94116 106760010 Lockwood Handford Est Of 605 Mac Arthur Ave San Mateo CA 94402-3324 029082190 Luceno Timoth J 526 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 029162270 L nch Stacey H 482 Chatham Rd Burlin ame CA 94010 123560070 Maltz Scott A Tr 512 Primrose Rd Unit 401 Burlin ame CA 94010 029162010 Mitchell Robert D Tr 531 Oak Grove Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-2747 106760080 Movahhed Hassan S 1990 Channelford Rd Westlake Villa e CA 91361 029163280 Murphy Ma 525 Oak Grove Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-2748 029162020 N Michael R an 483 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2724 029133260 Ohlund Partners Lp 615 Fairwa Cir Hillsborou h CA 94010-0000 029133250 Ohlund Partners Lp 615 Fairwa Cir Hillsborou h CA 94010-0000 123560080 Parineh Mariam 512 Primrose Rd #Phb Burlin ame CA 94010 029131250 Park Lane (San Mateo) Lp 840 Coleman Ave #10 Menlo Park CA 94025 029132210 Pelino Dennis L Tr 1138 Dou las Ave Burlin ame CA 94010 029082170 Pennese Joseph 516 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2727 029082140 Penrose Rub Glad s Guillen 500-504 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 105410050 Petrie Michael J Tr 1121 Dou las Ave Unit 301 Burlin ame CA 94010-7901 029132060 Pieroni Asia & Lar C Trs 1227 Lake St Millbrae CA 94030-2925 2/4 1128-1132 Douglas Ave and 524 Oak Grove Ave apns 029.132.180 and 190 and 029.083.010 300' radius noticing list 161 notices - 09.06.16 mailing 029082080 Portillo Rafael 515 Francisco Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 029132270 Primrose Gardens Llc 328 Lan Rd Burlin ame CA 94010 106760090 Quadt Joann Tr 1210 Bellevue Ave #208 Burlin ame CA 94010-4059 029164040 Rakstins Ari�s Tr 481 Bloomfield Rd Burlin ame CA 94010-2757 029082150 Ramos Enrico P Po Box 4521 Burlin ame CA 94011-4521 029131240 Robb Janet Claire Schneider 840 Coleman Ave #10 Menlo Park CA 94025 029162030 Robinson C nthia Yednak Tr 479 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2724 108140040 Rohani Behdokht Tr 1244 Bellevue Ave #6 Burlin ame CA 94010 029132150 Romano Samuel & Suzanne 1262 E. Hamilton Ave #D Cam bell CA 95008 108980050 Root John S 1133 Dou las Ave # 303 Burlin ame CA 94010-3995 029083080 Rosselli Robert J Tr 121 Pepper Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-3429 029131220 Rossi Claire M Tr 412 Nevada Ave San Mateo CA 94402-2228 123560040 Rueff J Russell Jr Tr 512 Primrose Road #201 Burlin ame CA 94010-3907 108980030 R an Ra mond J 1133 Dou las Ave #202 Burlin ame CA 94010-3993 029164020 Schiller Laura L nn Tr 667 Pettis Avenue Mountain View CA 94041 029151040 Schmitz Carroll F& C L Trs 1237 Bellevue Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-4006 029132030 Schneider Properties L 840 Coleman Ave #10 Menlo Park CA 94025 105410070 Ser unova Julia 1121 Dou las Ave #303 Burlin ame CA 94010-3903 106770120 Sikora Marcin 1210 Bellevue Ave #404 Burlin ame CA 94010 029083060 Simpson Victoria Tr 454 Trident Dr Redwood Ci CA 94065-1122 029082130 Smith Doroth A Tr 163 San Mi uel Wa San Mateo CA 94403-2968 108980060 So Clarke 1133 Dou las Ave #302 Burlin ame CA 94010 029132170 Stevenson Elizabeth Ma Tr 1124 Dou las Ave Burlin ame CA 94010 029133020 Stock Alois J& Irene M Trs 619 Hurlin ham Ave San Mateo CA 94402-1027 029133030 Stock Alois J Tr 619 Hurlin ham Ave San Mateo CA 94402 105410040 Stone Sandra Tr 1121 Dou las Ave Apt 203 Burlin ame CA 94010 106770080 Strobel Susan K 1210 Bellevue Ave #308 Burlin ame CA 94010-4030 029083030 Suarez Estuardo 511 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2726 029133150 S racuse John Joseph Tr 415 California Dr Buflin ame CA 94010 029163270 Szabok Tibor E& Prabha R 482 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2725 106770070 Tanzi Joseph L*** 1210 Bellevue Ave Apt 307 Burlin ame CA 94010-4030 029163260 Tateishi Isao 478 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2725 029083090 Taverna Bruce F 1756 Gum St San Mateo CA 94402-3028 029132260 Ta lor Edward L& Ma J Trs 775 Willborou h Rd Burlin ame CA 94010-3718 108980010 Ta lor John William Tr 1133 Dou las Ave # 4 Burlin ame CA 94010 029164280 Tilden Am A Tr 486 Cumberland Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 123560030 Torres Luis M Tr 512 Primrose Rd #201 Burlin ame CA 94010 108130020 Tosh James C 999 Third St Beaver PA 15009-2316 029132160 T bab Partners Llc Et AI 20 Whitne Rd Short Hills NJ 07078-3409 106760070 Urbina Patricia Tr 1210 Bellevue Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-4030 029163240 Verducci Jacl n Tr 470 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 029131380 W& M Investments Llc 1435 Huntin ton Ave Ste 230 So San Francisco CA 94080 029131260 Wada Ma Tr 314 Sailfish Isle Foster City CA 94404 106770110 Wan Bernadine 1210 Bellevue Ave #403 Burlin ame CA 94010 029082200 Webb Granville A lii & C G 528 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2727 029082100 Wedertz Christine M 412 Darwin St Santa Cruz CA 95062-2629 106770040 Weinstein Vladimir R Tr 23 Mounds Rd San Mateo CA 94402 108980020 Weisl Gerald Mark 1133 Dou las Ave #5 Burlin ame CA 94010-3995 105410020 Wentworth Gerard F Tr 24 W Santa Inez Ave San Mateo CA 94402 029133270 Wilson Doroth M Tr 443 Floribunda Ave #A Burlin ame CA 94010 029132070 Wind Hill Pv Seven Lp 530 Emerson St Palo Alto CA 94301 029082160 Won Daniel Wun Chin 512 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 3/4 1128-1132 Douglas Ave and 524 Oak Grove Ave 300' radius noticing list apns 029.132.180 and 190 and 029.083.010 161 notices - 09.06.16 mailing 029132180 Zers Development Inc 8 Vista Ln Burlin ame CA 94010 029132190 Zers Development Inc 8 Vista Lane Burlin ame CA 94010 029083010 Zers Dou las Llc 8 Vista Ln Burlin ame CA 94010 029163020 Zlatunich Philip J& Theresa A 483 Cumberland Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2720 Occupant 1128 Dou las Ave Burlin ame CA 94010 Occupant 1128 Dou las Ave Apt 1 Burlin ame CA 94010 Occupant 1128 Dou las Ave Apt 2 Burlin ame CA 94010 Occupant 1128 Dou las Ave Apt 3 Burlin ame CA 94010 Occupant 1128 Doul as Ave Apt 4 Burlin ame CA 94010 �1 , I r K � IIL� � I�i I�� I, � � U 4/4 524 Oak Grove Ave 300' radius noticing list apn 029.083.010 # notices - 09.06.16 mailing APN OWNER NAME MAILING ADDRESS1 MAILING CITY MAILI MAILING ZIP 029162280 Adams Timoth W Tr 486 Chatham Rd Burlin ame CA 94010-2712 029082010 Alviso Robert F Tr 540 Oak Grove Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-2749 029083070 Arena James G Tr 1540 Hoover Ave Burlin ame CA 94010 029162040 Ashizawa Yoshiko Tr 65 Fairwa Dr Dal Ci CA 94015-1215 029164260 Atkinson Jean S Tr 2344 Hale Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 029163040 Batchelor Stuart A Tr 475 Cumberland Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2720 029082030 Blekis Alfred & Rudite D Trs 535 Francisco Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2722 029164010 Bo d Michael F Tr 503 Oak Grove Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-2728 029082070 Camozzi Robert Tr 519 Francisco Bivd Burlin ame CA 94010-2722 029082110 Castro Salvatore & Nellie S 1002 Croatia Ct Roseville CA 94661 029164240 Cortese Michael J Tr 470 Cumberland Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2721 029082020 Dambra Allen Louis 539 Francisco Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-0000 029082090 Deus Halide Tr 511 Francisco Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2722 029082120 Dittes Maril n D Tr Po Box 1306 Millbrae CA 94030-2832 029083020 Domenici Robert A 515 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 029164250 Drumn Richard H 85 Spruce St Millbrae CA 94030-2028 029163250 Ensi n Luc K& James R 474 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2725 029082060 Evans Glen Britton lii 523 Francisco Drive Burlin ame CA 94010-2722 029164270 Gan ul Gautam M 482 Cumberland Drive Burlin ame CA 94010 029163010 Gibson Joan E S Tr P O Box 4503 Stateline NV 89449-4503 029082050 Hamilton Christopher E 527 Francisco Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2722 029082210 Hill Ronald J Tr 532 Oak Grove Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-2749 029163050 Hor an John M Tr 471 Cumberland Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2720 029082180 Horn Lucia E Tr 520 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2727 029083040 Hutar John M 505 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 029083050 Iwamura Audre T Tr 415 42nd Ave San Mateo CA 94403 029163030 Kern David Geor e Tr 479 Cumberland Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2720 029162050 Kiewlich Daniel 471 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2724 029162260 Krumins Aleks J 478 Chatham Rd Burlin ame CA 94010-2712 029164030 Lee Suen Fai 485 Bloomfield Rd Burlin ame CA 94010 029082040 Lenardon Robert G& W M Trs 531 Francisco Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2722 029082190 Luceno Timoth J 526 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 029162270 L nch Stacey H 482 Chatham Rd Burlin ame CA 94010 029162010 Mitchell Robert D Tr 531 Oak Grove Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-2747 029163280 Murph Ma 525 Oak Grove Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-2748 029162020 N Michael R an 483 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2724 029082170 Pennese Joseph 516 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2727 029082140 Penrose Rub Glad s Guillen 500-504 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 029082080 Portillo Rafael 515 Francisco Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 029164040 Rakstins Ari�s Tr 481 Bloomfield Rd Burlin ame CA 94010-2757 029082150 Ramos Enrico P Po Box 4521 Burlin ame CA 94011-4521 029162030 Robinson C nthia Yednak Tr 479 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2724 029083080 Rosselli Robert J Tr 121 Pepper Ave Burlin ame CA 94010-3429 029164020 Schiller Laura L nn Tr 667 Pettis Avenue Mountain View CA 94041 029083060 Simpson Victoria Tr 454 Trident Dr Redwood Ci CA 94065-1122 029082130 Smith Doroth A Tr 163 San Mi uel Wa San Mateo CA 94403-2968 029083030 Suarez Estuardo 511 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2726 029163270 Szabok Tibor E& Prabha R 482 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2725 029163260 Tateishi Isao 478 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2725 029083090 Taverna Bruce F 1756 Gum St San Mateo CA 94402-3028 029164280 Tilden Am A Tr 486 Cumberland Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 1 524 Oak Grove Ave 300' radius noticing list apn 029.083.010 # notices - 09.06.16 mailing 029163240 Verducci Jacl n Tr 470 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 029082200 Webb Granville A lii & C G 528 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2727 029082100 Wedertz Christine M 412 Darwin St Santa Cruz CA 95062-2629 029082160 Won Daniel Wun Chin 512 Marin Dr Burlin ame CA 94010 029083010 Zers Dou las Llc 8 Vista Ln Burlin ame CA 94010 029163020 Zlatunich Phili J& Theresa A 483 Cumberland Dr Burlin ame CA 94010-2720