Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
619-625 California Drive - Environmental Document
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION 0: ❑ Office of Planning and Research FROM: CITY OF BURLINGAME P.0 Box 3044 Community Development Dept. Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 ® County Clerk ENDORSED FILED County of San Mateo °saCEOFT�* 555 County Center #1 COUNTY ER It%VA"OCOVNTYCALIF Redwood City, California 94063 SEP 2 8 2018 MARK C CH County Clerk By Deputy Clerk SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ND-600-P — 619-625 California Drive Live/Work Development Proiect Project Title Kevin Gardiner (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 619-625 California Drive, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The project consists of merging three parcels (619, 621 and 625 California Drive) and demolishing all existing structures on the site, to construct a new, four-story, 26-unit live/work building with retail space on the ground floor. The live/work units on the second, third, and fourth floors would range from 927 to 1,166 square feet in floor area and would contain a living area, kitchen, bathroom, laundry closet, sleeping area (studio or one - bedroom), and a work area. The project would include a ground level parking garage providing a total of 34 parking stalls, which exceeds the code required 33 parking stalls. The proposed garage would include vehicle stackers to provide 22 of the required parking spaces. The building footprint would cover 14,160 square feet of the 19,450 square foot project site (72.8 percent of the lot) and the building would be approximately 53 feet 9 inches tall. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above -described project on September 24, 2018 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, Burlingame CA 94010. 3. Mitigation measures [®were [_1 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Burlingame, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 501 Gardiner, Community Development Director Date ` State of California - Department of Fish and Wildlife 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT DFW 753.5a (Rev. 01/03/18) Previously DFG 753.5a Print SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY. LEAD AGENCY LEADAGENCY EMAIL City of Burlingame Planning Division COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING San Mateo RECEIPT NUMBER: 41 — 09282018 — Finalize&Email CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (If applicable) DATE 09282018 DOCUMENT NUMBER PROJECT TITLE ND-600-P - 619-625 California Drive LiveMork Development Project PROJECT APPLICANT NAME PROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL PHONE NUMBER (650) 558-7250 Kevin Gardiner PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 501 Primrose Road Burlingame Ca 94010 PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box) Local Public Agency ✓� School District ❑ Other Special District State Agency Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: 0.00 ❑ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $3,168.00 $ ❑� Mitigated/Negative Declaration (MND)(ND) $2,280.75 $ 2,280.75 ❑ Certified Regulatory Program document (CRP) $1,077.00 $ 0.00 ❑ Exempt from fee ❑ Notice of Exemption (attach) ❑ CDFW No Effect Determination (attach) ❑ Fee previously paid (attach previously issued cash receipt copy) 000 ❑ Water Right Application or Petition Fee (State Water Resources Control Board only) $850.00 $ 0 County documentary handling fee $ 50.00 ❑ Other $ PAYMENT METHOD: El Cash ❑ Credit El Check El Other TOTAL RECEIVED $ 2,330.75 SIGNAT E AGENCY OF FILING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE X .,-�,�� Anshu Nand - Deputy Clerk ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY - CDFW/ASB COPY - LEAD AGENCY COPY - COUNTY CLERK DFW 753.5a (Rev. 20151215) County of San Mateo Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder Mark Church 555 County Center Redwood City, CA, 94063 Finalization 2018059165 9/28/18 1.22 pm 022 31 Item Title -------------------------------------------------- Fish & Game: Mitigated Negati Document ID Amount -------------------------------------------------- DOC# 2018-000242 2330.75 -------------------------------------------------- Total 2330.75 Payment Type Amount -------------------------------------------------- Check tendered 2330.75 # 6550 Amount Due 0.00 THANK YOU PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR RECORDS CITY OF BURLINGAME BU-RLIWGAME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division PH: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION POSTING ONLY To: Interested Individuals From: City of Burlingame ANSHU (NAND County Clerk of San Mateo Community Development Department UN 13 2018 Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-600-P) Project Title: 619-625 California Drive Project Project Location: 619-625 California Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The project consists of merging three parcels (619, 621 and 625 California Drive) and demolishing all existing structures on the site, to construct a new, four-story, 26-unit live/work building with retail space on the ground floor. The live/work units on the second, third, and fourth floors would range from 957 to 1,195 square feet in floor area and would contain a living area, kitchen, bathroom, laundry closet, sleeping area (studio or one -bedroom), and a work area. The project would include a ground level parking garage providing a total of 34 parking stalls, which exceeds the code required 33 parking stalls. The proposed garage would include vehicle stackers to provide 22 of the required parking spaces. The building footprint would cover 14,273 square feet of the 19,450 square foot project site (73.3 percent of the lot) and the building would be approximately 54 feet 10 inches tall. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration: In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby given of the City's intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A mitigated negative declaration is a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but 1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of an Initial Study and mitigations, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon- the environment. The City has prepared a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010 or online at https://www.burlinp,ame.org/business detail T54 R66.php. Comment Period: As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on June 13, 2018 and ends on July 3, 2018. Comments may be submitted during the review period. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of the determination set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing to: William Meeker, Community Development Director City of Burlingame Community Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Fax: (650) 696-3790 / Email: wmeeker(a@burlingame.org Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period and/or during any duly noticed public hearings. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed application for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Condominium Permit and Lot Merger for a new 26-unit live/work development at 619-625 California Drive has been tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Please check the Planning Division's major projects page, the Planning Commission meeting and agenda page, or call the Planning Division (650) 558-7250 for updates on the tentative hearing date. Posted: June 13, 2018 FIRSTCARBON SOLUTIONSTM Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 619-625 California Drive Development Project City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, California Prepared for: City of Burlingame Planning Division Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA, 94010 650.558.7256 Contact: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.357.2562 Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director Elizabeth Johnson, Senior Project Manager Date: September 2018 NORTH AMERICA I EUROPE I AFRICA I AUSTRALIA I ASIA WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTI0NS.COM AN ADEC INNOVATION FI RSTCARBON SOLUTIONS TrA Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 619-625 California Drive Development Project City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, California Prepared for: City of Burlingame Planning Division Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA, 94010 650.558.7256 Contact: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.357.2562 Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director Elizabeth Johnson, Senior Project Manager Date: September 2018 NORTH AMERICA I EUROPE I AFRICA I AUSTRALIA I ASIA AN ADEC INNOVATION THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Burlingame 619-62S California Drive Development Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents Table of Contents Section1: Introduction............................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2: Responses to Written Comments................................................................................ 2-1 2.1- List of Authors................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 - Responses to Comments................................................................................................2-1 Section3: Errata.......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 - Changes in Response to Specific Comments..................................................................3-1 Appendix H: Updated Transportation Analysis FirstCarbon Solutions ili v:\Publications\Client IPN-1NA2803\28030W9\Fina1 ISMND\2W300095ecD0-01 TOC.docz THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Final Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction Although not required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, the City of Burlingame has evaluated the comments received on the 619-625 California Drive Development Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND). The Responses to Comments and Errata, which are included in this document, together with the Draft IS/MND, Draft IS/MND appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, comprise the Final IS/MND for use by the City of Burlingame in its review and consideration of the 619-625 California Drive Development Project. This document is organized into three sections: • Section 1—Introduction. • Section 2—Responses to Written Comments: Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft IS/MND. Copies of all of the letters received regarding the Draft IS/MND and responses thereto are included in this section. • Section 3—Errata: Includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications on the Draft IS/MND, which have been incorporated. The Final IS/MND includes the following contents: • Draft IS/MND (provided under separate cover) • Draft IS/MND appendices (provided under separate cover) • Responses to Written Comments and Errata (Sections 2 and 3 of this document) • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (provided under separate cover) FirstCarbon Solutions 1-1 YAPublications\Client (PN-IN)\2903\2W30009\Final ISMND\280300095ec91-001ntmduction.dou THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.1- List of Authors Responses to Written Comments A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Revised IS/MND is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed -referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response. Author Individuals Author Code Samuel Jones, Coffee Family Trust............................................................................................... COFFEE 2.2 - Responses to Comments 2.2.1- Introduction In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Burlingame, as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received on the Final IS/MND for the 619-625 California Drive Project, and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final IS/MND for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. 2.2.2 - Comment Letters and Responses The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors. FirstCarbon Solutions 2.1 Y!\Publications\Chem (PN IN)\2803\28030009\Final 15MND\280300095ec02.00 Response to Comments.dou THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK COFFEE Paqe 1 of 2 -� Coffee Family Trust 25 Amber Dr. San Francisco, CA 94131 RECEIVED June 25, 2018 JUN 2 5 2018 Delivered in Person and U.S. Mail CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 RE: Comments on 619-625 California Drive Development Project ISMND Dear Mr. Hurin: We have reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the above referenced Project and respectfully submit the following comments: 1. The ISMND does not list Aesthetics as a potentially significant environmental impact in the Table in Section 2, page 23. We strongly disagree with this assessment. The Project's monolithic building footprint on Oak Grove Avenue will negatively overwhelm the aesthetics of the entrance to the Oak Grove Avenue neighborhood. On Oak Grove Avenue the building should be set back from the sidewalk, the beautiful legacy oak trees should be preserved and landscaping should be included in front of the building to match the longstanding character of the neighborhood. The ISMND does not list Transportation/Traffic as a potentially significant environmental impact in the Table in Section 2, page 23. We strongly disagree with this assessment. The Project's only driveway is at the extremely congested intersection of San Mateo and Oak Grove Avenues. The ISMND Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix H) does not include this important non -signaled intersection. There are very significant unstudied traffic congestion impacts from parents dropping off and picking up Burlingame High School students and especially from customers accessing the laundromat rear entrance via San Mateo Avenue. We often witness Oak Grove Avenue (northeast bound) backups of 10 to 15 cars, and strongly disagree with the assessment in paragraph 4 on page 14 of the traffic study (that there are only backups of a few cars at the driveway). Lyft and Uber pickups/drop-offs can exacerbate the congestion and these may increase due to the Project. Additionally, the above -mentioned impacts do not necessarily occur during peak AM and PM traffic periods, the periods studied in the Traffic Analysis. Since this Project is a live/work building (with commercial components), the Project driveway should be located on California Drive (a commercial avenue), not on Oak Grove Avenue (a residential avenue). 3. The ISMND does not address the significant environmental impact of Transportation/Traffic during construction. Project construction will take place over a considerable length of time, probably 12 to 15 months. Project construction will adversely affect traffic on California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue if construction traffic flows and site access is 3 not properly controlled. Significant traffic mitigation measures beyond typical City requirements are needed. We recommend adding Project mitigations to require the contractor to submit a Traffic Control Plan to the City for review and approval prior to construction. COFFEE Page 2 of 2 June 25, 2018, page 2, Coffee Family Trust ISMND Comments 4. A technicality: the description of the Project intersection location is confusing. It's described throughout the ISMND as being in the southeast corner of the California Drive/Oak Grove Avenue intersection. Given the orientation of the 4 intersection, the Project is almost perfectly due south. Shouldn't it be described as being in the south comer of the intersection? Thank you, Coffee Family Trust, owner of 1210 Oak Grove Avenue, Burlingame, CA 1: fi- Samuel W. Jo MI s, P.E., Co -trustee Cc: Harold C. Coffee Jr., P.E., Co -trustee City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Written Comments Coffee Family Trust (COFFEE) Response to COFFEE-1 The Draft IS/MND discusses the project's potential impacts to aesthetics on pages 25-33 and provides two visual simulations of the proposed project (Exhibits 9a and 9b). The Draft IS/MND concludes that the project complies with the design guidelines as set forth in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan area. Specifically, the project conforms with the setbacks of existing surrounding buildings. The new building would be taller than surrounding commercial buildings, but it would include architectural features such as fenestration patterns and a rooftop deck, which would create consistency with the residential character of Oak Grove Avenue. The Draft IS/MND also presents an analysis of the project's compliance with the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, and concludes that the project would require a Conditional Use Permit and Condominium Permit to comply with the Municipal Code. As explained in the Draft IS/MND, the City's design review standards and processes would ensure that the project remains consistent with the design guidelines of the Downtown Specific Plan and would not significantly affect the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings. As discussed on page 25 of the IS/MND, as part of the proposed project, the applicant is proposing to remove an existing 24-inch-diameter red oak street tree along Oak Grove Avenue in order to accommodate a wider driveway apron into the project site. The tree to be removed was inspected by a City arborist and deemed to be in poor health with decay in the limbs and trunk, and fungus growing on the trunk. The removed tree will be replaced with a 24-inch box red oak (Quercus rubra). Therefore, the project would not remove any healthy legacy oak trees on -site; the tree to be removed has been deemed to be in poor health, and the removal will be mitigated by the replacement of the 24-inch box red oak. Response to COFFEE-2 San Mateo Avenue meets Oak Grove Avenue directly across from the proposed project driveway. The "Nearby Driveways" section, in both the Transportation Analysis of the IS/MND (Appendix H) and the updated Transportation Analysis, which replaces Appendix H of the Draft IS/MND, studies the San Mateo Avenue/Oak Grove Avenue intersection and references it as an access driveway given its roadway characteristics (i.e., low volumes, short distance, operates as a commercial drive aisle). The report notes that intersection operations at this driveway (San Mateo Avenue/Oak Grove Avenue) are not expected to be significantly impacted by the proposed project due to the small number of trips the project is estimated to generate. In addition, field observations showed that eastbound vehicle queues at the California Drive/Oak Grove Avenue intersection were 2 to 3 vehicles. Calculations performed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants show that the average eastbound vehicle queue would be about 4 vehicles, which would not block the project driveway. The calculated 95`h percentile queue length is 8 vehicles, which would block the driveway. However, a vehicle queue of that length would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles. With the addition of project -generated traffic, the 95th percentile queue is estimated to be unchanged. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to have a minimal effect on traffic operations at the California Drive/Oak Grove Avenue intersection and at the San Mateo Avenue/Oak Grove intersection. FirstCarbon Solutions YAPublications\Client(PN IN)\2803\28030009Mina l ISMNMM300095eCO2 0 Response to Comments.doa 2-S Responses to Written Comments City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration It should also be noted that traffic conditions were analyzed during the weekday AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) peak hours because those hours are the typical peak commute hours when traffic volume is highest on the roadways in the study area (AM and PM peak hours are consistent with standards set forth by the City of Burlingame; project trip generation was estimated by applying the appropriate trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, loth Edition (2017)). Also, those are the hours when the most traffic from the project would be added to the adjacent streets. In regards to locating the driveway on California Drive as opposed to Oak Grove Avenue, California Drive has a greater volume of traffic, so the driveway would be more difficult to access compared to the proposed access on Oak Grove Avenue. Furthermore, northbound vehicle on California Drive turning left to enter the project could provide conflicts with northbound vehicles approaching or queuing to turn left onto Oak Grove Avenue. Response to COFFEE-3 Typical activities related to the construction of any development could include lane narrowing and/or lane closures, sidewalk and pedestrian crosswalk closures, and bike lane closures. In the event of any type of closure, clear signage (e.g., closure and detour signs) must be provided to ensure vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists are able to adequately reach their intended destinations safely. As a standard condition of approval required by the City, the project would be required to submit a construction management plan for City approval that addresses schedule, closures/detours, staging, parking, and truck routes. Discussion of project construction activities are incorporated in the updated Transportation Analysis, which replaces Appendix H of the Draft IS/MND. Response to COFFEE-4 Within the Transportation Analysis, California Drive is treated as a north/south roadway. Thus, the project site's location should be described as the southwest corner of the California Drive/Oak Grove Avenue intersection. This revision is reflected in the updated Transportation Analysis, which replaces Appendix H of the Draft IS/MND. The correction to the project description is also shown in Section 3: Errata of this Final IS/MND. 2-6 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-1N)\2803\280300D9\Fina1 ISMND\28030009 SeCO2-00 Response to Comments.doc. City of Burlingame 619-62S California Drive Development Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The following are revisions to the Draft IS/MND for the 619-625 California Drive Development Project. Errata These revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the document, do not add any mitigation measures, and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft IS/MND. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underlined (underlined) and all deletions from the text are stricken (striekee). 3.1- Changes in Response to Specific Comments Section 1.2—Project Location Page 1 The project location was clarified. The revised section is below: The project site is located in the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, California (Exhibit 1). The 0.45-acre project site consists of three parcels, Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 029- 131-140, 029-131-150, and 029-131-160, which also are designated Lots L, M, and N, Block 6. The project site is located on 619-625 California Drive, at the seatheast southwest corner of the intersection of California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue near downtown Burlingame. Section 16—Transportation/Traffic Page 123 The project location was clarified. The revised section is below: The project site is located on the seatheast southwest corner of the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue intersection. Section 1.6—Intended Uses of this Document Page 23 As shown in Section 2.14, Public Services, on page 117, the IS/MND concluded that the project would have a potentially significant impact on public services without mitigation. In addition, on page 123 in Section 2.16, Transportation/Traffic, the IS/MND concluded traffic impacts were potentially significant without mitigation. The Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation table was revised for consistency, as shown below. FirstCarbon Solutions Y\Publications\Cbent iPN 1N)\2803\28030009\Fina1 ISMND\28030009 Sec03-00 Errata.d- 3-1 City of Burlingame 619-615 California Drive Development Project Errata Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ® Air Quality Resources ® Biological Resources ® Cultural/Tribal Cultural ® Geology/Soils Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ® Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing Public Services ❑ Recreation Transportation/Traffic ® Utilities/Services Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Section 2.3—Air Quality Page 38 The Environmental Impact Summary Table for Air Quality has been revised for consistency to reflect the level of mitigation as discussed in impact 3a), as shown on page 41 of the IS/MND. The project was determined to have a less than significant impact as shown below in the revised table. Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ® ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ® ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ ® ❑ ❑ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 3-2 FirstCarbon Solutions V:\Publiotbns\Client (PN-JN)\2803\28030009\Fina1 ISMND\280300095e03-0 Enata.Eon City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Errata Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ® ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? Section 2.14—Public Services Page 117 The Environmental Impact Summary Table for Public Services has been revised for consistency to reflect the level of mitigation as discussed in impact 14c), as shown on page 119 of the IS/MND. Rather than having a less than significant impact, the project was determined to have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated in relation to schools. In addition, this table has been revised for consistency to reflect the level of mitigation required for parks as discussed in impact d) on page 120 of the Draft IS/MND. Rather than having a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, this project would have a less than significant impact on parks. The table has been revised to reflect these changes, as shown below. Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 14. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ® N ❑ d) Parks? ❑ N ® ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ FirstCarbon Solutions Y'.\Publication s\C h— (PN-1N;\2W3\28030009\VIna I ISMND\29030009 S-03-DD Errata.d- 3-3 City of Burlingame — — — 619-625 California Drive Development Project Errata Final Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 2.16—Transportation and Traffic Page 123-124 The project location was clarified. The revised paragraph is below: The project site is located on the s^�art southwest corner of the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue intersection. The project area takes access from US 101 via Broadway and subsequently California Drive. Another major roadway within the project site vicinity is El Camino Real. El Camino Real (State Route 82), located approximately 0.36 mile southwest, is an undivided four -lane State Highway and Congestion Management Program (CAMP) facility according to C/CAG, which is the Congestion Management Agency in San Mateo County. Page 127 Section 16, impact d) addresses on -site circulation. The underlined language confirms that incorporation of MM TRANS-1 (included as a mitigation measure in this section) would reduce sight distance impacts to a less than significant level.. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As part of the evaluation of site access and on -site circulation, the adequacy of the project driveway was evaluated with regard to the following: traffic volume, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, and corner sight distance. In accordance with Caltrans standards, adequate sight distance should be provided at the project driveway. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. For the driveway on Oak Grove Avenue, which has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph), the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 200 feet (based on a design speed of 30 mph). Based on the this standard, a driver exiting the driveway must be able to see 200 feet in both directions along Oak Grove Avenue in order to stop and avoid a collision with on -coming traffic. The protect would incorporate MM TRANS-1, which would prohibit on -street parking on Oak Grove Avenue between the project driveway and the western neighboring driveway ensuring adequate site distance. Therefore, the significance of this impact can be reduced with the implementation of MM TRANS-1. Section 2.17—Utilities and Service Systems Page 133 Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 are mentioned as mitigation measures in Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems within the text for impact c) on page 131, but they were not listed within the "Mitigation Measures" section within Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, in the Draft IS/MND and have been added for consistency, as shown below. Mitigation Measures Implement MM HYD-1 and MM HYD-2. 3-4 Firstt:arbon Solutions Y•\Publiotlons\Climt JPN-JN)\2803\28030009\F1na1 ISMND\280300D9 SeW3-W ErnUAM City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 18—Mandatory Findings of Significance Errata Page 136 Section 18, Mandatory Findings of Significance has been revised to include MM AIR-1, MM AIR-2, and MM TRANS-1 which were included as mitigation measures in the environmental evaluation, but were not included in this section in the Draft IS/MND. The revised section is shown below: In identifying projects that may contribute to cumulative impacts, the CECW Guidelines allow the use of a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, producing related or cumulative impacts, including those which are outside of the control of the lead agency. All cumulative impacts with relation to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, and noise are either less than significant after mitigation has been incorporated, or less than significant and do not require mitigation. Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2; BIO-1 and 810-2; CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3; GEO-1, GEO-2, GEO-3, and GEO-4; HYD-1 and HYD-2; a-R4 FS-1; and TRANS-1 would provide sufficient mitigation to reduce all potential impacts to levels of less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on these areas. Section 3—Summary of Mitigation Measures Pages 137-141 Section 3, Summary of Mitigation Measures has been revised to include MM AIR-1, MM AIR-2, and MM TRANS-1, which were included as mitigation measures in the environmental evaluation, but were not included in this section in the Draft IS/MND. The revised section is shown below: MM AIR-1 During construction activities, the following air pollution control measures shall be implemented: • Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles graded areas and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be rnvprprl • All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks shall be paved as soon as possible. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCRI). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. FirstCarbon Solutions 3-5 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-1N)\2803\2803DD09\Fina1 ISMND\28030009 5nO3-W Errala.d— Errata City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Final Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours of a complaint or issue notification. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM AIR-2 The developer or Proiect Applicant shall ensure all off -road construction equipment in excess of 50 horsepower used on -site by the developer or contractors is equipped with engines meeting the EPA Tier IV off -road engine emission standards. The construction contractor shall maintain a log of equipment use at the construction site with make, model, serial number, and certification level of each piece of construction equipment that will be available for review by City building inspection staff. MM 1310-1 Migratory Birds and Nesting Raptors 1. If construction or tree removal is proposed during the breeding/nesting season for local avian species (typically March 1 through August 31), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds within and in the vicinity of (no less than 250 feet outside the project boundaries, where possible) the project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. One survey will be conducted 30 days prior to tree removal or construction activities. If no active nests are found, tree removal or construction activities may proceed. 2. If an active nest is located during pre -construction surveys, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest. Furthermore, construction activities shall be restricted to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned or the biologist deems disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones or alteration of the construction schedule. MM BIO-2 Special -status Bat Species 1. To reduce construction related impacts to special -status bat species, a bat survey shall be conducted between March 1 to July 31 by a qualified wildlife biologist within the year of proposed construction start and prior to ground disturbance. If no bat roosts are detected, then no further action is required. If a colony of bats is found roosting on -site, then the following mitigation will be implemented to reduce the potential disturbance: 2. If a female or maternity colony of bats are found on the project site, a wildlife biologist through coordination with CDFW shall determine what physical and timed buffer zones shall be employed to ensure the continued success of the colony. Such buffer zones may include a construction -free barrier of 200 feet from the roost and/or the timing of the construction activities outside the maternity roost season (after July 31 and before March 1). 3-6 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Pubhutions\[bent (PN-IN(\2803\29030009\Final ISMND\28030009 Se 03-0D Enata.d= City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Errata MM CUL-1 In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and workers should avoid altering the materials until an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology has evaluated the resource. The Applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The resource shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by the qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive report complete with methods, results, and recommendations, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered resources. The report shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame, the Northwest Information Center, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as required. MM CUL-2 In the event that fossils or fossil -bearing deposits are discovered during construction activities, excavations within a 100-foot radius of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The project contractor shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction activities are allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the Applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the discovery. The plan shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame for review and approval prior to implementation, and the Applicant shall adhere to the recommendations in the plan. MM CUL-3 In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. If during the course of project development there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken: 1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native FirstCarbon Solutions 3-7 Y.\Pub1l t,on,\Client(PN-1NA2903\29030009\Final ISMND\29030009 Se03-00 Errata.do City of Burlingame 619-615 California Drive Development Project Errata Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American Remains: When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American Remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The applicant may develop a plan for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American Burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. MM GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit and during the foundation phases of construction, the project applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, by retaining a qualified geotechnical consulting firm. Subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations of borings during the Geotechnical Investigation. The geotechnical firm retained by the project applicant shall review final engineer plans as well as observe and test during the earthwork and foundation phases of construction. This would ensure recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation are properly incorporated into the project plan and development. MM GEO-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project's plans shall reflect foundations that extend deep enough to penetrate more stable soils. The project applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, by ensuring the building be supported on conventional spread footing foundation system bearing on stiff native soils or properly compacted structural fill. All 3-8 FirstCarbon Solutions YAPUEliotions\Client (PN-1N(\2803\28030009\Final ISM N O\28030009 5e,03 X Errata. Eoa City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Errata continuous footings shall have a width of at least 15 inches and shall extend at least 30 inches below exterior grade or at least 24 inches below the bottom of concrete slabs -on -grade, whichever is deeper. Footings located adjacent to utility lines shall bear below a 1:1 plane extending up from the bottom edge of the utility trench. Continuous foundations shall be designed with sufficient depth and reinforcing to tolerate the estimated differential settlement. The geotechnical consulting firm retained by the applicant shall observe all footing excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel to confirm that suitable material has been exposed and properly cleaned. If soft or loose soil is encountered in the foundation excavations, the geotechnical consulting firm may require overexcavation and/or compactive effort or a deeper footing depth below the reinforcing steel is placed. Alternative to the spread footing foundation described above, the building may be supported on a reinforced concrete mat foundation bearing on a properly prepared and compacted soil subgrade. The mat foundation shall have a thickened perimeter edge that extends at least eight inches into the soil subgrade below the bottom of the mat or at least four inches below the base of the capillary break rock section. This should improve edge stiffness, reduce the potential for map slab dampness, and increase resistance to lateral loads imposed on the mat. The mat foundation shall be reinforced to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. It shall be designed with sufficient depth and reinforcing to be able to tolerate the estimated differential settlements. Prior to mat construction, the subgrade shall be proof -rolled to provide a smooth firm surface for mat support. Where dampness of the mat would be undesirable, a high quality membrane vapor barrier shall be installed. MM GEO-3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the structural engineer shall consult with the membrane manufacturer for the coefficient of friction to be assumed for design. Lateral loads may be resisted by base friction between the vapor barrier or damp proofing membrane shown below the mat and the supporting subgrade and by passive soil pressure acting against the sides of the mat foundations. Lateral resistance may be provided by passive soil pressure acting against the sides of foundations cast neat in footing excavations or backfilled with compacted structural fill. The upper foot of passive soil shall not be neglected where soil adjacent to the footing or mat will be landscaped or subject to softening from rainfall and/or surface runoff. MM GEO-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the building foundations shall be designed as recommended by the Geotechnical Investigation. The 30-year post -construction differential settlement due to static loads is not expected to exceed 1 inch across the proposed building. Less differential movement would be expected across a structural mat foundation. Additional differential settlement may occur as a result of liquefaction and dynamic densification caused by severe ground shaking during a major earthquake FirstCarbon Solutions 3_9 V'\Publications\C I,,— IPN-INI\2803\2803D009\Fina1 15MND\280300095tt03-00 Errata.docx Errata City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MM HYD-1 The project applicant shall prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following: • A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; • Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short- term biodegradable erosion control blankets; • Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at downstream storm drain inlets; • Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials, litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and • The post -construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. MM HYD-2 Prior to project approval, the project applicant shall prepare the appropriate documents consistent with San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) and NPDES Provisions C.3 and C.6 requirements for post - construction treatment and control of stormwater runoff from the site. Post - construction treatment measures must be designed, installed, and hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals shall identify the owner and maintenance party responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post -construction stormwater treatment measure in perpetuity. A maintenance agreement or other maintenance assurance must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a final construction inspection. MM PS-1 The project Applicant would be responsible for paying all school impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. MM TRANS-1 In order to maintain adequate sight distance, on -street parking shall be prohibited on Oak Grove Avenue between the project driveway and the western neighboring driveway. 3-10 FirstCorbon Solutions V:\Fub6oti0ns\Client )FN-IN)\2803\2W300D9\Final ISMND\28030DD9 Se 03-W Emata.do City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\2803\2803DD09\F1na1 l3MND\28030009 Sec03-W Errata.d= THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK "0-) HRAWN TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Memorandum TDate: August 6, 2018 To: Ms. Elizabeth Johnson, First Carbon Solutions From: Gary Black Lance Knox ® Subject: Transportation Analysis for 619-625 California Drive Live/Work Development in Burlingame, California Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a transportation study for the proposed Live/Work development at 619-625 California Drive in Burlingame, California. The project site is ® located on the southwest corner of the California Drive/Oak Grove Avenue intersection (see Figure 1). As proposed, the project would consist of a new four-story, 26 unit live/work development with 2,100 square feet of commercial space. Currently one of the existing parcels is vacant and the other two are occupied by an automobile repair shop and residential houses. The proposed project would replace all existing structures on the project site. Access to the site would be provided via a single full -access driveway on Oak Grove Avenue. -0- Scope of Study This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential transportation impacts related to the proposed development. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Burlingame and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County. The C/CAG administers the San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Given that the project is expected to add less than 100 peak hour trips to CMP roadways, a C/CAG trip reduction analysis was not prepared. The traffic study OvO includes an analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for two (2) signalized and two (2) unsignalized intersections in the vicinity of the project site. The study also includes an analysis of site access and on -site circulation, and parking. Study intersections Hexagon conducted AM and PM peak period traffic counts in May of 2017 and January of 2018 at the following study intersections: 1. Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue 2. California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue 3. Ansel Road and Oak Grove Avenue * 4. El Camino Real and Oak Grove Avenue e* Denotes Unsignalized Intersections ' These are the four closest intersections to the site and would experience the greatest increase in traffic due to the project. Figure 2 shows the existing traffic volumes at the study intersections. ® 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 • San Jose, California 95113 • phone 408.971.6100 • fax 408.971.6102 • www.hextrans.com 619-625 California Drive Site Location and Study Intersections - - - -- .. HUMON 4 NORTH rya a sue. 619-625 California Drive H IMON Existing Traffic Volumes NORTH Nal b 3oY Transportation Analysis for Live/Work Development in Burlingame, California August 6, 2018 Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated intersection levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service analysis does not accurately reflect existing traffic conditions. Overall, all study intersections operated adequately during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, and the level of service analysis appears to accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions. However, field observations showed that eastbound traffic at the Carolan Avenue/Oak Grove Avenue intersection occasionally experiences vehicle queues that back up to the California Drive/Oak Grove Avenue intersection, particularly due to the frequent Caltrain railroad gate down- times. Once the railroad gate is lifted, vehicles are able to proceed through the intersection and vehicle queues dissipate within a short timeframe (less than 30 seconds). Other movements at this intersection have moderate back-ups and no issues. Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three -step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic traveling to and from the proposed mixed -use project was estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, the directions to and from which the project trips would travel were estimated. In the project trip assignment, the project trips were assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below. Trip Generation Through empirical research, data has been collected that indicates the amount of traffic that can be expected to be generated by common land uses. These standard trip generation rates are applied to predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The standard trip generation rates are published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Project trip generation was estimated by applying the appropriate trip generation rates obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). The average trip generation rates for Mid -Rise Multifamily Housing (Land Use 221) and Shopping Center (Land Use 820) were applied to the project. Live/work units do not operate the same as regular residential units. Some trips will be made by clients and patrons. However, the trip to work that residents normally would make during peak hours is eliminated due to the in -unit work space. These two factors offset, thus the trip behavior associated with live/work units was assumed to be comparable to that of a traditional residential unit. The ITE rates for Shopping Center are typically used for projects such as this (i.e. projects that include a general commercial component) if the specific land uses are not known at the time the traffic study is being prepared, since shopping centers commonly contain a wide range of commercial land uses. Based on the project description and ITE trip generation rates, the proposed development would generate a total of 220 gross daily vehicle trips, with 11 gross trips (8 inbound and 3 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour and 19 gross trips (8 inbound and 11 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour (see Table 1). r. EXAGON Page 1 4 .. u Transportation Analysis for Live/Work Development in Burlingame, California August 6, 2018 Trip Reductions Since the project would comprise a mix of residential and retail uses, a 15 percent trip reduction was applied to account for the internalization of trips between the two land use components of the project. A retail pass -by trip reduction of 25 percent was also applied to the net peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed retail space. Pass -by -trips are trips that would already be on the adjacent roadways (and so are already counted in the existing traffic) but would turn into the site while passing by. Justification for applying the pass -by -trip reduction is founded on the observation that such retail traffic is not actually generated by the retail development but is already part of the ambient traffic levels. Pass -by trip reductions are typically only applied to the PM peak hour. Existing Use Credit The existing occupied buildings' trip generation can be credited against the proposed mixed -use development, because with the demolition of the existing land uses, their associated traffic would disappear. The trip generation for the existing automobile repair shop was estimated based on the driveway counts conducted on January 11, 2018, while the existing residential houses were estimated based on published ITE rates for Single -Family Detached Housing (Land Use 210). Given that one of the residential houses is being used as an office with multiple employees, ITE rates for General Office Building (Land Use 710) were used. Based on the driveway counts and ITE trip generation rates, it is estimated that the existing uses are generating a total of 44 daily trips, with 7 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 9 trips occurring in the PM peak hour. Net Project Trips After applying the ITE trip rates, appropriate trip reductions, and existing site trip credits, the project would generate 123 new daily vehicle trips, with 7 new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 9 new trips occurring during the PM peak hour (See Table 1). Project Trip Distribution and Assignment The trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. The peak hour vehicle trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the trip distribution pattern. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the trip distribution pattern and net trip assignment of project traffic on the local transportation network, respectively. Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes. The existing plus project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 5. �.� H HOON Page Transportation Analysis for Live/Work Development in Burlingame, California Table 1 Project Trip Generation Estimates Proposed Project Live/Work Residential' 26 units 5.44 141 0.36 2 7 9 Internal Trip Reduction (15%) 6 (21) 0 (1) (1) Subtotal 120 2 6 8 Retail Space 2 2.10 ksf 37.75 79 0.94 1 1 2 Internal Trip Reduction (15%) B (12) - - - Retail Pass -By Trip Reduction (25%) 7 (20) - - - Subtotal 47 1 1 2 Total Project Trips 167 3 7 10 Automobile Shop3 6.00 ksf (15) 0 (1) (1) Single -Family Residentia14 2 units 9.44 (19) 0.74 0 (1) (1) General Office Building 5 3 employees 3.28 (10) 0.37 (1) 0 (1) TOW ExW" Trips (44) (1) (2) (3) August 6, 2018 0.44 7 4 11 6 3 9 3.81 4 4 8 0 (1) (1) 3 2 5 (1) (1) (2) 0.99 (1) (1) (2) 0.40 0 (1) (1) (2) (3) (5) Notes: ksf = 1,000 square feet ' Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (Land Use 221) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, loth Edition, 2017. 2 Shopping Center (Land Use 820) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, loth Edition, 2017. 3 Based on driveway counts conduted on January 11, 2018. Daily trips reductions are the average of the AM and PM peak hour rate multiplied by 10. 4 Single -Family Detached Housing (Land Use 210) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. 5 General Office Building (Land Use 710) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. 6 Internal trips for the commercial use is assumed to be the same as the residential use. Internal trips were assumed to be 15% of the primary trips. 7 Pass by trips for the retail land use was assumed to be 25% of the primary trips for the PM Peak hour, based on the trip reduction factors published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (2012). .. HEXAGON Page 1 6 619-625 California Drive ., NIXA60N rlVjt!UL i rIIIJ uisuIuuuUn NORTH wYSOY 619-625 California Drive u UMON Net Project Trip Assignment , 41A �LF NORTH not �o se. 619-625 California Drive Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes ,"M u IXA60N NORTH W. Ss Transportation Analysis for Live/Work Development in Burlingame, California August 6, 2018 Intersection Operations Analysis Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free -flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are described below. Burlingame LOS Standard for Intersections The City of Burlingame level of service standards were used to evaluate the signalized study intersections. The City of Burlingame evaluates intersection level of service based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 method using Synchro software. The 2010 HCM method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. This average delay can then be correlated to a level of service. While the City of Burlingame does not have a Council -adopted level of service threshold, a standard of LOS D or better has typically been applied in local traffic studies and EIRs. The correlation between delay and level of service is shown in Table 2. Table 2 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression u to 10.0 p and/or short cycle lengths. B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short 10.1 to 20.0 cycle lengths. C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or 20.1 to 35.0 longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable D progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop 35.1 to 55.0 and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long E cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent 55.1 to 80.0 occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to Greater than 80.0 oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source: Transportation Research Board, 2010 Highmy Capacity Manual, (Washington, D.C., 2010). Unsignalized Intersections Level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is generally used to determine the need for modification in the type of intersection control (i.e., all -way stop or signalization). As part of the evaluation, traffic volumes, delays and traffic signal warrants are evaluated to determine if the existing intersection control is appropriate. .` Page � 10 .. I�EXAGON Transportation Analysis for Live/Work Development in Burlingame, California August 6, 2018 Level of service at unsignalized intersections was based on the 2010 HCM method using the Synchro software. This method is applicable for both side -street and all -way stop -controlled intersections. At side -street stop -controlled intersections, the reported levels of service are reported for the worst stop -controlled approach delay at the intersection. For all -way stop -controlled intersections, a weighted average delay of the entire intersection is presented. The City of Burlingame does not have a formally -adopted level of service standard for unsignalized intersections. The correlation between average control delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 3. Table 3 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay A Little or no traffic delay Up to 10.0 B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays Greater than 80.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual I (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17.2 Level of Service Analysis Results Intersection levels of service were evaluated against City of Burlingame standards. Intersection levels of service were calculated for existing and existing plus project conditions and are summarized in Table 4. The results of the analysis show that under both scenarios with and without the project, all of the signalized study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours. The unsignalized study intersections along Oak Grove Avenue currently operate at LOS B during both peak hours and would continue to do so under existing plus project conditions. '4.� HIXAGON P age 1 1 1 d Transportation Analysis for Live/Work Development in Burlingame, California August 6, 2018 Table 4 Intersection Levels of Service 1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue AM 5/23/17 AWSC •' 14.0 B 14.0 B PM 5/23/17 12.1 B 12.1 B AM 5/23/17 20.4 C 20.5 C 2 California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Signal PM 5/23/17 16.0 B 16.1 B AM 1/11/18 11.2 B 11.3 B 3 Ansel Road and Oak Grove Avenue TWSC ` PM 1/11/18 10.8 B 10.8 B AM 1/11/18 11.7 B t 4 El Camino Real and Oak Grove Avenue Signal PM 1/11/18 11.0 B 11.0 B 4WSC = All -Way Stop Control TWSC = Two -Way Stop Control rt Due to limitations within the Synchro software, the intersection of Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue cannot be evaluated with three stop -controlled approaches and one free -flowing approach. Therefore, the study intersection was evaluated as an all -way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. Average delay for an all -way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection. 2 Average delay for a two-way stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop -controlled approach. Site Access and On -Site Circulation The evaluation of the project's site access and circulation is based on the site plan prepared by Ellis A. Schoichet AIA Architecture, dated February 7, 2018 (see Figure 6). Site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site's driveway with regard to the following: traffic volume, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, and corner sight distance. On -site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards and transportation planning principles. Project Driveway Design Site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site's driveways with regard to the following: traffic volume, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, and corner sight distance. Access to the project site would be provided via a single full -access driveway on Oak Grove Avenue. The project driveway is shown to be 18 feet wide and would provide access to the commercial parking as well as the residential parking areas of the garage. The City of Burlingame Zoning Code requires a minimum of either two 12-foot driveways or one 18-foot driveway for parking areas of more than 30 vehicle spaces. Therefore, the project would meet the City's minimum width requirement for a two-way driveway. r� Page � 12 ._ I�ExAGON 619-625 California Drive C.5 �O O O ' -R - ZE J) Ji .. HHOON T11 2 A W 7 8 9.1 10 B.nsa�M tin ■ California Drive Live -Work 619-625 Calloma Dr. &r4—, CA 0.5 .E. t 1 i p I' I � Al Figure 6 Project Site Plan Transportation Analysis for Live/Work Development in Burlingame, California August 6, 2018 Nearbv Driveways The location of the project driveway was also reviewed with respect to other driveways in the vicinity of the project. Nearby driveways are located approximately 50 feet west and more than 1,000 feet east of the project driveway. While the project driveway would be close in proximity to the driveway west of the project, vehicles are still expected to be able to make turns in and out of the project driveway without affecting similar operations at the adjacent driveway because of the small number of trips that the project would generate. Therefore, the driveway location as proposed was found to be adequate. However, adequate sight distance needs to be provided at the project driveway to ensure vehicles at the adjacent driveway are within the line of sight. Sight distance at the project driveway is described below. Siaht Distance Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) should be provided at the project driveway in accordance with Caltrans standards. Sight distance triangles should be measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway or intersection and provides drivers with the ability to exit a driveway or locate sufficient gaps in traffic. The minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. For the driveway on Oak Grove Avenue, which has a posted speed limit of 25 mph, the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 200 feet (based on a design speed of 30 mph). Thus, a driver must be able to see 200 feet in both directions along Oak Grove Avenue in order to stop and avoid a collision. Based on the project site plan, the project driveway would have at least 200 feet of sight distance in both directions without the on -street parking adjacent to the driveway. Therefore, the project should prohibit on -street parking between the project driveway and the western neighboring driveway, and it can be concluded that the project driveway would meet the Caltrans minimum stopping sight distance standards. Project Driveway Operations The project -generated trips that are estimated to occur at the project driveway are 14 inbound trips and 14 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 28 inbound trips and 29 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Based on the relatively low traffic volumes near the project site and observations of existing traffic operations along Oak Grove Avenue, vehicle queues should rarely exceed a few (2 to 3) vehicles during peak hours. The project driveway would provide full -access, allowing right and left inbound and outbound turns onto Oak Grove Avenue. Outbound left turns from the project driveway would require vehicles to wait for gaps in both the eastbound and westbound traffic, while inbound left turns would require vehicles to wait for a gap in the eastbound traffic flow only. Given that Oak Grove Avenue consists of only one lane in each direction with no left -turn pockets, left turns would be made from the through lane. Thus, there would be interruptions to the through traffic flow while left -turn vehicles wait for a gap in the on -coming traffic flow, albeit momentary. A level of service analysis was conducted for left -turns at the project driveway to ensure that vehicles would operate without excessive delays or queues (see Table 5). Under existing plus project conditions, the driveway would operate at LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours, while left -turns from westbound Oak Grove Avenue into the project driveway would experience a LOS A during both peak hours. This indicates that left -turning vehicles at the project .. I�EXAGON Page 1 14 .. Transportation Analysis for Live/Work Development in Burlingame, California August 6, 2018 driveway would experience minor delays and are expected to have a minimal effect on operations at the adjacent intersections. Table 5 Intersection Levels of Service On -Site Circulation On -site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of Burlingame Zoning Code and generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Generally, the proposed plan would provide vehicle traffic with adequate connectivity through the parking areas. The project would provide 90- degree parking stalls throughout the parking garage. The City's standard minimum width for two- way drive aisles is 24 feet wide where 90-degree parking is provided. This allows sufficient room for vehicles to back out of the parking spaces. According to the site plan, the drive aisles throughout the parking garage measure 24 feet wide. Thus, adequate access to all parking stalls would be provided throughout the site. Parking Garage Circulation Based on the project site plan, the parking garage shows adequate circulation within the parking garage, with only one dead-end drive aisle along the southern edge of the garage (see Figure 6). The northern portion of the parking garage would serve the commercial component of the project, while the southern portion would serve the live/work component. Access to the residential parking area would be provided via a security gate separating the two parking areas. Within the residential parking area of the garage, some of the parking spaces would consist of a mechanical -stack parking system. Comprised of two parking spaces, the vehicle stackers would present an open parking stall, that once occupied would automatically shift downward, presenting the second open stall. This system would also allow residents to retrieve their vehicle without the need to move the accompanying vehicle. Therefore, vehicle queues throughout the parking garage are expected to be minimal and not result in backups that extend onto Oak Grove Avenue. Parking Stall Dimensions According to the project site plan, the project proposes standard -sized (8.5 feet wide by 18 feet long) stalls, which would meet the City's off-street parking design standard. Van accessibility is provided at two of the ADA accessible stall locations. .'d N IXA60N P a g e 1 1 5 Transportation Analysis for Live/Work Development in Burlingame, California August 6, 2018 The City of Burlingame Zoning Code does not include standards for mechanical -stack parking systems. However, it should also be noted that the project proposes to use the Klaus MultiBase 2072 stacker system, which would consist of standard -size parking stall dimensions and a height of about 12 feet. This would allow the vehicle stackers to accommodate passenger cars, trucks, as well as SUVs and vans. Bike and Pedestrian On -site Circulation The project plan provides adequate pedestrian circulation on site, as well as between the site and the surrounding pedestrian facilities. The project site plan includes a publicly -accessible pedestrian plaza at the southwest corner of the California Drive/Oak Grove Avenue intersection. The plaza would be supplied with benches and landscaping, as well as easy access to the ground -floor commercial spaces and the residential lobby area. In addition, the project would remove four existing driveways along the project frontage on California Drive, and build additional sidewalk space connecting to the existing bus stop. Continuous walkways would also be provided around the project building, with resident -only access gates connecting to Oak Grove Avenue and California Drive. The parking garage includes one stair on either end of the parking areas and an elevator so that pedestrians would have convenient access to the parking areas from any part of the garage. As shown on Figure 6, all of the residential bicycle parking would be located on the ground floor in the garage. This would allow bicyclists to enter and leave the project site through the garage entrance/exit and connect to the bike route along Oak Grove Avenue and along California Drive. Publicly -accessible bike racks would also be provided adjacent to the residential lobby area on Oak Grove Avenue, with adequate access to both designated bike routes. Truck Access and Circulation In accordance with the City's Zoning Code (Section 26.30.070(a)), condominium uses within a commercial district are not required to provide off-street loading/unloading spaces for delivery/service vehicles. Therefore, the proposed project is not required to provide any loading spaces. Garbage Collection The site plan shows one on -site trash room located at the southeast corner of the project site. Garbage collection activities for the project are not expected to occur on -site due to height and access limitations. The trash bins would be moved into the street via an 8-foot curb cut along California Drive on designated garbage collection days. Given that on -street parking is permitted along California Drive, signs prohibiting parking during garbage pickup hours should be placed adjacent to the trash room. The trash bins also should be removed from the public right-of-way immediately after garbage pickup as to not impact AM or PM peak hour traffic conditions. Construction Activities Typical activities related to the construction of any development could include lane narrowing and/or lane closures, sidewalk and pedestrian crosswalk closures, and bike lane closures. In the event of any type of closure, clear signage (e.g., closure and detour signs) must be provided to ensure vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists are able to adequately reach their intended destinations safely. As a standard condition of approval required by the City, the project would be required to submit a construction management plan for City approval that addresses schedule, closures/detours, staging, parking, and truck routes. .. HIMON Page 1 16 Transportation Analysis for LiveMork Development in Burlingame, California August 6, 2018 Parking Analysis The City of Burlingame does not provide special parking requirements for mixed -use developments, so the project must follow the parking requirements outlined in the City's zoning ordinance for each individual use. The City of Burlingame Zoning Code (Section 25.70.032) states that residential uses within the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Area, as well as retail uses, are to provide parking as follows: 1.0 parking space per 300 square feet of retail space, 1.0 parking space per studio and one -bedroom unit. The project as proposed would provide up to 26 live/work units consisting of a mix of studio and one -bedroom units, and 2,100 square feet of commercial space. Based on the City's parking requirements and the current project description, the project would be required to provide 26 parking spaces for the residential component and 7 parking spaces for the commercial component. Based on the project site plan dated September 29, 2017, the parking garage would provide a total of 34 parking spaces consisting of seven (7) parking spaces designated for commercial parking and 27 spaces designated for residents. Therefore, the proposed parking supply would meet the City's Parking Code Per the California Building Code (CBC) Table 11 B-6, two (2) ADA accessible spaces are required for projects with 26 to 50 parking spaces. Of the required accessible parking spaces, one van accessible space is required. The plans show a total of three (3) accessible spaces: one located within the commercial parking area, and two located within the residential parking area. Of the provided ADA accessible spaces, two (2) are shown to be designated van accessible. Thus, the project adheres to the CBC accessible parking provisions. Bicycle Parking The City of Burlingame municipal code does not include standards for bicycle parking. However, the project site plan shows a total of 18 bicycle parking spaces on site. Two of the spaces would be located outside of the parking garage and would be accessible to the public. The remaining 16 spaces would be located within the parking garage and would serve the residents. Conclusions This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying potential traffic impacts related to the proposed live/work development at 619-625 California Drive in Burlingame, California. Based on the standards set forth by the City of Burlingame and C/CAG, the results of the intersection level of service analysis show that the proposed project would not result in a significant impact at any of the study intersections under existing and existing plus project conditions. Recommendations This report has also provided the following recommendations for the project: • Based on the sight distance evaluation, the project should prohibit on -street parking between the project driveway and the western neighboring driveway, to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. ." NIXA60N Page 1 17 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FI RSTCARBON SOLUTIONS TM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 619-625 California Drive Development Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, California Prepared for: BURLINGAME City of Burlingame Planning Division Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA, 94010 650.558.7256 Contact: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.357.2562 Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director Elizabeth Johnson, Senior Project Manager Report Date: September 17, 2018 NORTH AMERICA I EUROPE I AFRICA I AUSTRALIA I ASIA ^ AN ADEC INNOVATION WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Burlingame-619-615 California Drive Development Project 3. Air Quality Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1: 619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures MM AIR-1: During construction activities, the following air pollution control measures shall be implemented: • Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks shall be paved as soon as possible. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours of a complaint or issue notification. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publiutions\Client(PN-1N)\2803\280300D9\MMRP\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev MMRP.doa Method of Verification The City of Burlingame Building Division of the Community Development Department shall inspect the worksite regularly to ensure construction mitigation measures are implemented Timing of Verification During construction activities Responsible for Verification Project Applicant/City of Burlingame Verification of Completion Date Initial City of Burlingame-619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Table 1(cont.): 619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures MM AIR-2: The developer or Project Applicant shall ensure all off -road construction equipment in excess of 50 horsepower used on -site by the developer or contractors is equipped with engines meeting the EPA Tier IV off -road engine emission standards. The construction contractor shall maintain a log of equipment use at the construction site with make, model, serial number, and certification level of each piece of construction equipment that will be available for review by City building inspection staff. 4. Biological Resources MM BIO-1: Migratory Birds and Nesting Raptors 1. If construction or tree removal is proposed during the breeding/nesting season for local avian species (typically March 1 through August 31), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds within and in the vicinity of (no less than 250 feet outside the project boundaries, where possible) the project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. One survey will be conducted 30 days prior to tree removal or construction activities. If no active nests are found, tree removal or construction activities may proceed. 2. If an active nest is located during pre -construction surveys, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest. Furthermore, construction activities shall be restricted to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned or the biologist deems disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones or alteration of the construction schedule. FirstCarbon Solutions V:\Publications\Client)PN-1N)\2803\28030009\MMRP\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CAD, Dev MMRP.d= Method of Verification On -site inspection; submittal of logs Timing of Verification During construction and prior to any fuel - powered grading or construction activities On -site surveys; submittal 30 days prior to tree of survey documents; removal or periodic on -site inspection/monitoring construction activities if removal is proposed during breeding/nesting season (March 1 through August 31) Responsible for Verification Project Applicant/City of Burlingame Project Applicant/City of Burlingame Verification of Completion Date Initial City of Burlingame-619--625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 (cont.): 619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible for Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification MM BIO-2: Special -status Bat Species On -site surveys; submittal Between March 1 Project 1. To reduce construction related impacts to special -status bat of survey documents; and July 31 within a Applicant/City of species, a bat survey shall be conducted between March 1 periodic on -site year of proposed Burlingame to July 31 by a qualified wildlife biologist within the year of inspection/monitoring construction start or proposed construction start and prior to ground ground disturbance. disturbance. If no bat roosts are detected, then no further action is required. If a colony of bats is found roosting on - site, then the following mitigation will be implemented to reduce the potential disturbance: 2. If a female or maternity colony of bats are found on the project site, a wildlife biologist through coordination with CDFW shall determine what physical and timed buffer zones shall be employed to ensure the continued success of the colony. Such buffer zones may include a construction -free barrier of 200 feet from the roost and/or the timing of the construction activities outside the maternity roost season (after July 31 and before March 1). S. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources MM CUL-1: In the event a potentially significant cultural On -site inspection and During construction Project resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork monitoring; provision of or in the event Applicant/Qualified activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of Section 15064.5 permit(s); resources are found Archaeologist/City of the find shall cease and workers should avoid altering the copy of Department of Burlingame materials until an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Parks and Recreation 523 Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology forms has evaluated the resource. The Applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The resource shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by the qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publiotions\Client(PN-JN(\2W3\28030009\MMRP\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev MMRPAd Verification of Completion Date Initial City of Burlingame-619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1(cont.): 619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive report complete with methods, results, and recommendations, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered resources. The report shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame, the Northwest Information Center, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as required. MM CUL-2: In the event that fossils or fossil -bearing deposits Review of construction During construction are discovered during construction activities, excavations specifications; on -site or in the event fossils within a 100-foot radius of the find shall be temporarily halted inspection/monitoring; or fossil -bearing or diverted. The project contractor shall notify a qualified provision of Section deposits are paleontologist to examine the discovery. The applicant shall 15064.5 permit(s); review discovered include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every of data recovery plan construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction activities are allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the Applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the discovery. The plan shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame for review and approval prior to implementation, and the Applicant shall adhere to the recommendations in the plan. FirstCorbon Solutions Y:\Pub1ications\C1ient(PN-1N(\2803\28030009\MMRP\28030009 Burlinpm< 619-625 CA Dr De MMRP.d= Responsible for Verification Project Applicant/Qualified Paleontologist/City of Burlingame Verification of Completion Date Initial City of Burlingame-619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 (cont.): 619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Responsible for Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification Date Initial MM CUL-3: In the event of the accidental discovery or Review of Native In the event human Project recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section American Heritage remains are Applicant/City of 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Commission (NAHC) discovered during Burlingame; NAHC; Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be correspondence; on -site site disturbance/ County Coroner followed. If during the course of project development there is inspection and construction accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the monitoring; submittal of following steps shall be taken: findings and 1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 documentation feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: • The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client(PN-JN(\2803\280300D9\MMRP\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Day MMRP.dm City of Burlingame-619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 (cont.): 619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures • The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American Remains: When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American Remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The applicant may develop a plan for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American Burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. 6. Geology and Soils MM GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit and during the foundation phases of construction, the project applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, by retaining a qualified geotechnical consulting firm. Subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations of borings during the Geotechnical Investigation. The geotechnical firm retained by the project applicant shall review final engineer plans as well as observe and test during the earthwork and foundation phases of construction. This would ensure recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation are properly incorporated into the project plan and development. FirstCarbon Solutions YAPublications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\280300D9\MMRP\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev MMRP.dm Method of Verification Review and approval of site plans; on -site inspection Timing of Verification Prior to the issuance of building permits Responsible for Verification Project Applicant/City of Burlingame Verification of Completion Date Initial City of Burlingame-619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 (cont.): 619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures MM GEO-2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project's plans shall reflect foundations that extend deep enough to penetrate more stable soils. The project applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, by ensuring the building be supported on conventional spread footing foundation system bearing on stiff native soils or properly compacted structural fill. All continuous footings shall have a width of at least 15 inches and shall extend at least 30 inches below exterior grade or at least 24 inches below the bottom of concrete slabs -on -grade, whichever is deeper. Footings located adjacent to utility lines shall bear below a 1:1 plane extending up from the bottom edge of the utility trench. Continuous foundations shall be designed with sufficient depth and reinforcing to tolerate the estimated differential settlement. The geotechnical consulting firm retained by the applicant shall observe all footing excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel to confirm that suitable material has been exposed and properly cleaned. If soft or loose soil is encountered in the foundation excavations, the geotechnical consulting firm may require overexcavation and/or compactive effort or a deeper footing depth below the reinforcing steel is placed. Alternative to the spread footing foundation described above, the building may be supported on a reinforced concrete mat foundation bearing on a properly prepared and compacted soil subgrade. The mat foundation shall have a thickened perimeter edge that extends at least eight inches into the soil subgrade below the bottom of the mat or at least four inches below the base of the capillary break rock section. This should improve edge stiffness, reduce the potential for map slab dampness, and increase resistance to lateral loads imposed on the mat. The mat foundation shall be reinforced to provide FirstCorbon Solutions Y:\Publi.Vi\Cllent(PN-1N(\2803\28030009\MMRP\280300D9 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev MMRP.d= Responsible for Verification of Completion Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification Date Initial Review and approval of Prior to the issuance Project site plans; on -site of building permits Applicant/City of inspection Burlingame City of Burlingame-619--615 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Table 1(cont.): 619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. It shall be designed with sufficient depth and reinforcing to be able to tolerate the estimated differential settlements. Prior to mat construction, the subgrade shall be proof -rolled to provide a smooth firm surface for mat support. Where dampness of the mat would be undesirable, a high quality membrane vapor barrier shall be installed. MM GEO-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the structural engineer shall consult with the membrane manufacturer for the coefficient of friction to be assumed for design. Lateral loads may be resisted by base friction between the vapor barrier or damp proofing membrane shown below the mat and the supporting subgrade and by passive soil pressure acting against the sides of the mat foundations. Lateral resistance may be provided by passive soil pressure acting against the sides of foundations cast neat in footing excavations or backfilled with compacted structural fill. The upper foot of passive soil shall not be neglected where soil adjacent to the footing or mat will be landscaped or subject to softening from rainfall and/or surface runoff. MM GEO-4: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the building foundations shall be designed as recommended by the Geotechnical Investigation. The 30-year post -construction differential settlement due to static loads is not expected to exceed 1 inch across the proposed building. Less differential movement would be expected across a structural mat foundation. Additional differential settlement may occur as a result of liquefaction and dynamic densification caused by severe ground shaking during a major earthquake. FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\280300D9\MMRP\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev MMRP.d= Responsible for Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification Review and approval of Prior to the issuance Project site plans; on -site of building permits Applicant/City of inspection Burlingame Review and approval of Prior to the issuance Project site plans; on -site of building permits Applicant/City of inspection Burlingame Verification of Completion Date Initial Burlingame-619-625 California Drive Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1(cont.): 619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible for Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification 9. Hydrology and Water Quality MM HYD-1: The project applicant shall prepare and implement Review and approval of Prior to issuance of Project a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all site plans; on -site grading and building Applicant/City of construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the inspection permit; during all Burlingame SWPPP shall include the following: earth moving and • A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment construction activity for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; • Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets; • Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at downstream storm drain inlets; • Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials, litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and • The post -construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. MM HYD-2: Prior to project approval, the project applicant Review and approval of Prior to project Project shall prepare the appropriate documents consistent with San site plans; on -site approval; during all Applicant/City of Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program inspection earth moving and Burlingame (SMCWPPP) and NPDES Provisions C.3 and C.6 requirements construction activity for post -construction treatment and control of stormwater runoff from the site. Post -construction treatment measures must be designed, installed, and hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals shall identify the owner and maintenance party FirstCarbon Solutions YAPublications\Oient)PN-IN)\2803\280300D9\MMRP\28030D09 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev MMRP.d= Verification of Completion Date Initial City of Burlingame-619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1(cont.): 619-625 California Drive Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post -construction stormwater treatment measure in perpetuity. A maintenance agreement or other maintenance assurance must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a final construction inspection. 14. Public Services MM PS-1: The project Applicant would be responsible for paying Proof of payment of fees all school impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. 16. Transportation/Traffic MM TRANS-1: In order to maintain adequate sight distance, on - street parking shall be prohibited on Oak Grove Avenue between the project driveway and the western neighboring driveway. Identification of red curb on site circulation plans; review and approval of site plans; site visit Responsible for Timing of Verification Verification Prior to issuance of Project building permits Applicant/City of Burlingame Prior to issuance of Project certificate of Applicant/City of occupancy Burlingame Verification of Completion Date Initial FirstCarbon Solutions 10 Y:\Publiotion,\01ent(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\MMRP\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr!) vMMRPA= FIRSTCARBON SOLUTIONSTM 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, California Prepared for: City of Burlingame Planning Division Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA, 94010 650.558.7256 Contact: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.357.2562 Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director Elizabeth Johnson, Senior Project Manager Report Date: June 12, 2018 NORTH AMERICA I EUROPE I AFRICA I AUSTRALIA I ASIA WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM AN ADEC INNOVATION FIRSTCARBON �OLUTIONS'11 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, California Prepared for: City of Burlingame Planning Division Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA, 94010 650.S58.7256 Contact: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.357.2562 Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director Elizabeth Johnson, Senior Project Manager Report Date: June 12, 2018 rq()RIH AMFRICA I EUROPE I AFRICA I AUSTRALIA I ASIA A'* f ,t ARBONSOLU: r .. ; COM AN ADEC INNOVATION THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK h r I n u pil 114 City of Burlingame 619,625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents Mb Table of Contents IAcronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................................vii Section 1: Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1 1.1- Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 1.2 - Project Location................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 - Environmental Setting....................................................................................................... 1 1.4 - Project Description............................................................................................................ 1 1.5 - Required Discretionary Approvals................................................................................... 21 1.6 - Intended Uses of this Document..................................................................................... 21 Section 2: Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation ............................................... 23 ' 1. Aesthetics................................................................................................................... 24 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources........................................................................... 35 3. Air Quality................................................................................................................... 38 4. Biological Resources...................................................................................................59 5. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources....................................................................... 64 6. Geology and Soils....................................................................................................... 71 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................ 77 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.............................................................................. 82 9. Hydrology and Water Quality..................................................................................... 88 10. Land Use and Planning............................................................................................... 94 11. Mineral Resources...................................................................................................... 96 12. Noise...........................................................................................................................98 13. Population and Housing........................................................................................... 115 14. Public Services.......................................................................................................... 117 15. Recreation................................................................................................................ 121 16. Transportation/Traffic...............................................................................................123 17. Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................... 129 r 18. I Mandatory Findings of Significance......................................................................... 134 Section 3: Summary of Mitigation Measures.............................................................................. 137 Section 4: References................................................................................................................. 143 LSection 5: List of Preparers......................................................................................................... 145 Appendix A: Air Quality Analysis Appendix B: Health Risk Assessment Appendix C: Biological Resources C.1- CNDDB, CNPS, and USFWS Database Searches C.2 - Street Tree Memo Appendix D: Cultural Resources D.1- NWIC Records Search Results D.2 - NAHC and Tribal Correspondence D.3 - Site Photographs D.4 - UCMP Paleo Results FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Pubhc,t-,\Client lPN-1N l\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.dou City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Table of Contents Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix E: Geotechnical Investigation Appendix F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix G: Noise Analysis Appendix H: Traffic Impact Analysis List of Tables Table 1: BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance.......................................................................................40 Table 2: Annual Construction Emissions (Unmitigated)........................................................................47 Table 3: Construction Emissions (Unmitigated Average Daily Rate).....................................................47 Table 4: Daily Operational Emissions (Unmitigated).............................................................................48 Table 5: Annual Operational Emissions (Unmitigated).........................................................................49 Table 6: Project DPM Construction Emissions —No Mitigation............................................................52 Table 7: Exposure Assumptions for Cancer Risk....................................................................................53 Table 8: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards during Construction—Unmitigated...............................54 Table 9: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards during Construction —Tier IV Mitigation .......................55 Table 10: Summary of the Cumulative Health Impacts at the MIR during Construction ......................56 Table 11: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions..............................................................................78 Table 12: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2020)....................................................................79 Table 13: Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment.........................................................................99 Table 14: Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria..............................100 Table 15: Noise Monitoring Summary................................................................................................101 Table 16: Outdoor Noise Level Planning Criteria................................................................................102 Table 17: Modeled Traffic Noise Levels...............................................................................................109 Table 18: Project Trip Generation Estimates.......................................................................................125 Table 19: Intersection Levels of Service..............................................................................................126 Table 20: Operational Waste Generation............................................................................................133 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map............................................................................................................3 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map, Aerial Base...............................................................................................5 Exhibit 3: Local Vicinity Map, Topographic Base.....................................................................................7 Exhibit4: Zoning Designation..................................................................................................................9 iv FirstCarbon Solutions YAPublicatlons\Client(PNJN(\2803\28030009\ISMND\280300098,dinpme 619 625 CAD, DWSMND.Cocs City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents Exhibit 5a: Northwest Elevation (Right Side)........................................................................................ 11 Exhibit 5b: Northeast Elevation (Front on California Drive)................................................................. LJExhibit 13 U 6: Site Plan................................................................................................................................ 15 Exhibit7: Landscaping Plan.................................................................................................................. 19 Exhibit 8: Viewpoint Location Map....................................................................................................... 27 Exhibit 9a: California Drive Simulation................................................................................................. 29 Exhibit 9b: Oak Grove Avenue Simulation............................................................................................ 31 Exhibit 10: Noise Measurement Location.......................................................................................... 103 U I FirstCarbon Solutions YAPubh—ions\[1ent(PN-1N!\2803\28030 \ISMND\280300 eurlinga me 619-62S CA Dr Dev ISMND.dou v IF I THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 1 ri F-1 F� It II City of Burlingame 619-615 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS °C degrees Celsius (Centigrade) -F degrees Fahrenheit µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter ARB California Air Resources Board AST aboveground storage tank BAAQMD Bay Area Quality Management District BMP Best Management Practice BRA Biological Resources Assessment CaIEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CBC California Building Code CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFGC California Fish and Game Code CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CO carbon monoxide CR California Register of Historic Resources CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition CSD Community Services Department CUPA Certified Unified Program Agencies CWA Clean Water Act DPM Diesel Particulate Matter DPR Department of Parks and Recreation DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control ESA Environmental Site Assessment FCS FirstCarbon Solutions FEMA Federal Emergency Agency FINDS Facility Index System FRS Facility Registry Service GHG Greenhouse Gas GMO Growth Management Ordinance gpd gallons per day HC highway commercial HI Hazard Index HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plans HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers FirstCarbon Solutions vii YAPublications\Client(PN-IN)\2803\28030D09\ISMND\2803DO09 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.do Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration LID Low Impact Development LOS Level of Service MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MEI Maximally Exposed Individual mgd million gallons per day MILD most likely descendant MM Mitigation Measure mph miles per hour MT CO,, Metric Tons of Carbon Monoxide Equivalent MU mixed use NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NOx nitrogen oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NR National Register of Historic Places NWIC Northwest Information Center OHWM ordinary high water mark OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PMlo coarse particulate matter PM2.5 fine particulate matter RCRA GEN Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Generator List REC Recognized Environmental Condition ROG Reactive organic gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SFIA San Francisco International Airport SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TAC toxic air contaminant TCR Tribal Cultural Resources TOG total organic gases TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology Database USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UST underground storage tank UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VOC volatile organic compounds WQMP Water Quality Management Plans WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant viii FirstCarbon Solutions YAPublkations\Client(PN-1N(\2803\28030009\ISMND\280300098uditame 619-625 CA Dr De ISMND.doal 0 City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction 1.1- Purpose The purpose of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to identify any potential environmental impacts from implementation of the 619-625 California Drive Development Project (project) in the City of Burlingame, California. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Burlingame is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this IS/MND and any additional environmental documentation required for the project. The City has discretionary authority over the proposed project. The intended use of this document is to determine the level of environmental analysis required to adequately prepare the project IS/MND and to provide the basis for input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public. The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the project location and the characteristics of the project. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist giving an overview of the potential impacts that may result from project implementation. Section 3 elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, along with justification for the responses provided in the environmental checklist. 1.2 - Project Location The project site is located in the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, California (Exhibit 1). The 0.45-acre project site consists of three parcels, Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 029-131-140, 029- 131-150, and 029-131-160, which also are designated Lots L, M, and N, Block 6. The project site is located on 619-625 California Drive, at the southeast corner of the intersection of California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue near downtown Burlingame. L 1.3 - Environmental Setting Currently, the parcel at 619 California Drive is vacant. The parcel at 621 California Drive has an automobile repair facility, and the parcel at 625 California Drive has two dwelling units. Adjacent land uses to the project site are an automobile service facility to the east, three-story multi -family f residential buildings to the south, a retail building and a three-story, multi -family residential building to the west, and a railroad right-of-way (Caltrain) to the north. Burlingame High School is located across the Caltrain tracks from the project site. 1.4 - Project Description The project site consists of three separate parcels that would be combined into one parcel for the proposed project. On this combined parcel, the applicant is proposing to construct a new 26-unit live/work building with space for commercial occupancy on the ground floor. The City's Zoning Code defines live/work as "a single unit (e.g., studio, loft or one -bedroom) consisting of both a commercial/office and a residential component that is occupied by the same resident. The live/work FirstCarbon Solutions YAPublications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr De ISMND.doca I— City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Introduction Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration unit shall be the primary dwelling of the occupant." The Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan allows live/work units in the C-2 North California Drive Commercial District, where the project site is located. 1.4.1 - Building The building would be four stories and would have a height of approximately 54 feet 10 inches (Exhibits 1 through 3). The exterior would have solid composite panels and a rainscreen facade, with a variety of colors. Painted metal coping is proposed along the top of the top story. Aluminum sash fenestration and aluminum louvers are proposed for the windows. The project proposes a common terrace on the fourth story, 725 square feet in area, with a tempered glass and aluminum guardrail system surrounding the terrace area. Accents would be added to the building, such as composite panels that resemble wood, tube steel posts, tube steel splayed columns, and metal grillework. Exhibits 4, 5a, and 5b display renderings of the building exterior. The ground floor would consist of an entrance lobby providing pedestrian access to the live/work units on the upper floors (Exhibit 6). The lobby would be entered by a main door facing Oak Grove Avenue near the intersection with California Drive. The ground floor also would consist of approximately 2,100 square feet of commercial space along California Drive, which can be configured as one or two tenant spaces. The commercial spaces on California Drive are intended to be conventional tenancies allowed under the City's C-2 zoning. Allowable uses in the C-2 district include all uses allowed in the C-1 district such as retail, personal services, business services, offices (except medical and real estate), financial services, food services, and laundromats. The C-2 district designation adds a different character of uses, including auto sales and repair, building contractors and trades, dry cleaners, amusements, print shops, and trade schools. In response to previous comments, the ceiling height on the ground floor was raised to 14 feet 9 inches. The 26 live/work units on the second, third, and fourth floors would range from 957 to 1,195 square feet in floor area. Each live/work unit will contain a living area, kitchen, bathroom, laundry closet, sleeping area (studio or one -bedroom), and a work area. The live/work units are similar to "artist's lofts," with work areas flexibly accommodated within a dwelling unit. Units can be used as studios for photography, art, recording, instruction, or exercise. They could also function as the offices and working spaces for professional writers, accountants, architects, engineers, interior, graphic, and other designers, artists, artisans, attorneys, software, web, and multi -media developers, consultants of all stripes, insurance, real estate, and travel agents, internet sales, and maintenance and repair persons, among others. As noted above, an entrance lobby on the ground floor would be constructed, with stairs and an elevator providing access to the live/work unit floors. It should be noted that the live/work units would be entirely separated from the commercial space on the ground floor. z FirstCarbon Solutions YAPubliations\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030DD9\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625c Dr De, ISMND.Goc, ball l��II)il) El Cerrito Rrsrlrnir Walnut Creek ! `•� Z. -- Altiany • ! •. _ ��/Lafayette Orinda � Berkeley t �s •� � Moraga Piedmont � C p/>1'r Sull San$Francisco % Alameda / l Oakland Rrrrril •� L<lkr ,% (hahoi San Leandro San Lore Siuth San ` d Francisco vd • �� 7 n w,% d % San Bruno C� Hay Pacifica .Sall Millbrae ,9ncLn.� Burlingame � LuGr ` illsborough San Mateo Project Site ` L( r ( Al %tul 01 Foster City S'prin / Resen.ol` u Belmont Redwood City Castro Valley UMW (''pprr ('l l:rlul S n Carlos Zen,, North Park. mBay K<'�<°rruir FairC ',% i East.P.alo %. to Source: Census 2000 Data, The CaSIL, FCS GIS 2016. FIRSTCARBON 5 2.5 0 5 ■� SOLUTIONS"' e Miles 28030009 • 11/2017 1 1_regional.mxd i i Stanforc Palo i r i IA. i', Los Exhibit 1 Regional Location Map CITY OF BURLINGAME • 619-625 CALIFORNIA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I r L: r r L I r- L 4 I THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK F r F L I I Is I Is 7•� O ti Rollins Rd '0 , ,49 � 6urIingaine; {• ^. High School i V/ 117 41 Ile ' r '�• - i` - •ice F/ C ` P ;�•_ 070 owe bing I& 15 I J u I J THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0 0 a D, 0 11 off p n 0 u 0 0 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0 ',, drs�@ 1 I �ttPh aa� r Project Site �. +. r. % I ?$A or illsborough 000 AA SAPS MBMU MIC2 MCAC SCR =DOT SIB MMMU 'R1 MR3 ESL MTW APN MBAC MC1 MC3 SCAR MDAC MECN MIHMU ERR R2 MR4 DTP M Unclassified Source: City of Burlingame, 2016 FIRSTCARBON e Exhibit 4 SOLUTIONS" Zoning Designation 28030009 • 11/2017 1 4_zoning.cdr CITY OF BURLINGAME • 619-625 CALIFORNIA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4 7 0 0 n i 0 0 n THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK D, 11-7, 0 0 9 0 0 1 I 5 T.O. COPING AT ELEVATOR SHAFT _ 58' _ Q 1 /8" - STEEL GUARD AND HANDRAILS -FABRICATOR COATED T.O. COPING AT FRONT 54�FACIA - _ _ _ - - _ - �— Em ALUMINIUM 5UN5HADE5 - FABRICATOR COATED FOURTH FLOOR - FINISH FLOOR p .-� a 5TEEL GATE 4 FENCING - FABRICATOR COATED O a I 1 1 a ©© - PROPERTY UNE FENCE -STEEL FRAMED WITH WOOD SIDING 1\ 11\ 1111 1\ THIRD FLOOR- s 4 FINISH FLOOR b s 271-8" m°m-0 - - - — - - _a - - -- N K 4 n n J SECOND FLOOR- FINISH FLOOR 161 0" -_- - Z a' FIRST FLOOR - G __ _�' OPEN TO GARAGE - FINISH FICALIFORNIA DRIVE 1209 OAK GROVE AVENUE LOBBY - -- -_ t 0' - 3" - --- FIRST FLOOR lk T.O.SLA_B. (19.43) AVERAGE T O.CURB (19.19) -0' - 2 7/8" f.......... CIH. A cGl...:_6 ArA FIRSTCARBON SOLUTIONSTM 28030009 • 04/2017 1 5a_northwest_elevation_right_side.cdr Exhibit 5a Northwest Elevation (right side) CITY OF BURLINGAME • 619-625 CALIFORNIA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 I T.O. COPING AT ELEVATOR SHAFT 58' - 4 1 /8' — - - -- - - - ---- - - - - - T.O. COPING AT � FRONT FACIA t/ 54' - 7 118. — — I FOURTH FLOOR- FINISH FLOOR 0 41'_1• — - THIRD FLOOR- FINISH FLOOR — — SECONV� FLOOR - FINISH FL — — 16 o. 0 FIRST FLOOR - FINISH FLOOR_W LOBBY 0'-3" FIRST FLOOR .O19.43' 0T.SLAB. 0' AVERAGE TYPICAL EXTERIOR MATERIALS - - ROOFTOP PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY METAL RACKING METAL COPING - PAINTED - COPING AT T_O. FRONT FACIA SOLID COMPOSITE PANELS / RAIN5CREEN FACADE - (G) COLOR PALLETTE @ TRE5PA METEON - UNI COULOUR5 A22.2.1 - BLU15H GREY - SATIN O TRESPA METEON - UNI COULOURS A21 I. I .o - WINTER GREY - SATIN O3 TRE5PA METEON - UNI COULOURS A03.4.0 - SILVER GREY - SATIN O TRESPA METEON - LUMEN 1.21.5.1 - DIFFUSE 5O TRE5FA METEON - NATURALS NMOI - RUSTED BROWN - MATT I 11jtE7i'jj' 7 IFIF1 W�i Jill t�E ul m 1) GLA55 AND ALUMINIUM GUARDRAIL SYSTEM w!L1 FIRSTCARBON gni_i JT10NSTM 28030009 • 04/2017 1 5b_northeast_elevation.ccir Im oil ME KIM Elm 1 wom's IMIMIM MIT. .1A ANU.RER C.. TO ..11 wTUBE STEEL SPLAYED COLUMNS - FABRICATOR COATED METAL GRJUEWORK AND GATE - FABRICATOR COATED OAK GROVE AVENUE WOOD BENCHES - STAINED ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE PLANTERS (BOARDFORMED) ALUM MUM 5A5H FENESTRATION - MILL-FIN15H Exhibit 5b Northeast Elevation (front on California Drive) CITY OF BURLINGAME • 619-625 CALIFORNIA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SS S$ SS SS—SS--�—ss sS sssS SS sS ss— h / California Dr N / /-- ---r - -� - --� ---------- -- y }v �S / s N i y ss II I 1 q —ss ss7—$$- 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 jy o D d h lJ / Oil� I I 1 ' I h ' ' of ' 3 q \3 ii LI 11 ii ii II 11 II ii II ii r 3\ q � ii 11 11 U ii 11 ii II q __ ________ LIrN ____________________ Water Line / y y —Ss Sanitary Sewer Line Source: FIRSTCARBON ® Exhibit 6 ;DULL, i iUN. Site Plan 28030009 • 04/2018 1 6_site_plan.cdr CITY OF BURLINGAME • 619-625 CALIFORNIA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Burlingame 615-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction 1.4.2 - Parking and Circulation The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan area. Therefore, the project qualifies for the reduced residential parking requirements for Downtown, as specified in Municipal Code Section 25.70.032. Based on the number of bedrooms per unit proposed for this project, the Zoning Code requires 26 spaces for the live/work units; based on the retail ratio of 1:300 square feet, seven parking spaces are required for the ground floor commercial uses. The project provides 34 off-street parking spaces (33 parking spaces minimum required), including seven parking spaces for the commercial uses, which complies with the applicable sections of the Municipal Code. Parking would be located in a garage that would be constructed behind the commercial space on the ground floor. The parking garage would be accessed from a driveway along Oak Grove Avenue. Upon entering the garage, seven parking spaces (six uni-stall and one disabled -accessible) will be available for the ground floor commercial spaces. Twenty-seven parking spaces (three uni-stall, 22 vehicle stacker and two disabled spaces) for the live/work residents will be available in a secured garage area behind an automatic overhead gate. No on -site guest parking would be provided, and no guest parking is required for properties located within the Downtown Specific Plan area. The proposed project includes vehicle stackers to provide 22 of the required parking spaces in the secured garage area for the live/work units. The applicant is proposing to use the Klaus MultiBase 2072 stacker system which can accommodate passenger cars, station wagons, SUVs, and vans. The Municipal Code does not include specifications for vehicle stackers, so there is no standard mechanism for review and approval of this feature. However, as a policy, the Downtown Specific Plan encourages "creative approaches" to providing on -site parking, including stackers. City staff has indicated that the stackers could be considered a "creative approach" to providing the required on - site parking for the project. To date, the City has approved several commercial and residential projects with various parking lift systems. Because the live/work project is located within a commercial district and is proposed as a condominium, the commercial condominium parking regulations would apply. Based on parking requirements for commercial condominiums found in Municipal Code Section 26.30.070(a), uni-stall parking spaces are permitted (8 feet 6 inches x 18 feet 0 inches allowed and proposed) and an area for a delivery/service vehicle is not required. The project does not propose an area for delivery/service vehicles. Bicycle parking is provided for both residents and visitors. A bicycle rack for visitors is located near the entrance lobby. Resident bicycle storage for 24 bicycles is provided in the secured parking garage. The project proposes improvements to the sidewalks fronting the project site, with a sidewalk 9 feet wide along California Drive and a sidewalk 5 feet wide along Oak Grove Avenue. Both sidewalks would be constructed in accordance with City standards. An existing bus stop bench along California Drive would remain in front of the project building. FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client(PN-IN(\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Or Dev ISMND.doa 17 City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Introduction Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.4.3 - Landscaping and Other Features Although there are no landscaping requirements in the C-2, North California Drive Commercial District, landscaping is proposed throughout the site (Exhibit 7). Several board -formed concrete planters and street trees would be installed along the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue frontages. Two existing street trees along California Drive would be replaced with two new street trees (London plane). One of the two existing street trees along Oak Grove Avenue would be replaced with a new street tree (red oak). The project also includes planting ten 24-inch box -size trees throughout the property. Other planters would be installed at the rear of the building. All plantings would be connected to a project irrigation system. There are no requirements for private and common open space for commercial condominiums. However, the proposed project includes private terraces for the live/work units on the fourth floor (565 to 625 square feet in area). As noted above, a common terrace, accessible by all residents, would be provided on the fourth floor. The common terrace would contain various planters and seating areas. The rooftop terrace would be situated towards the front corner of the building to minimize potential impacts on the adjoining properties. A private outdoor lounge/dining area would be available for building residents at the rear of the building. This lounge/dining area would contain a built-in kitchen/barbeque, dining table, gas fire pit, and lounge seating. Some of the concrete planters would function as stormwater biotreatment, including the planters at the rear of the building. These planters would contain a mix of grasses, low shrubs, and perennials that are selected for their ability to thrive in treatment areas. Along with the biotreatment planters, the project proposes the installation of walkways, entry paving, patio, and the garage driveway with pervious concrete to allow percolation of precipitation into the ground. A rooftop photovoltaic array with metal racking is proposed, along with a "cool roofing" membrane designed to reflect more sunlight and absorb less heat. Aluminum sunshades would be installed over windows facing eastward. A steel gate would be installed at the entry to the rear of the building, with a wooden fence 6 feet in height placed along the property line between the project site and the adjacent property on Oak Grove Avenue. Wooden benches would be installed near the building entrance. The project would enclose the areas where trash would be collected and where air conditioning condensers would be installed. The trash enclosure would be located on the side of the building and would be accessed from California Drive. The mechanical enclosure would be located at the rear of the building. An underground utility vault, which would house an electrical transformer, would be installed beneath the sidewalk along California Drive in front of the building. The project would connect to existing utility lines available to the project site, although a gas meter serving an adjacent property would be removed. 18 FirstCarbon Solutions YAPubllcatlons\Client(PN-1N)\2903\28030009\ISMND\2BC30009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev 15MND, doc, CALIFORNIA DRIVE CALIFORNIA DRIVE FOUNDATION PLANTINGS NEw CT woe CONLIRL'TE W A 905 ALONS CALIFORNIA LOW, DURABLE SHADE TOLERANT Low QE wAee•u SHRLB6 ALONG WY SCBWu TYP. FLANTN6 - - CALIFORNUI DRIVE STREET TREES LS DRNE TO CONFORM TO CRY AREAS ARE TO BE LE AL WITH AP. ACE NT FAVN6. LOCATE IN". REE &RATES FOR CRY STANDARDS: MSTw6 5TANDARDS. - r - UTILITIES E TO TN6 UTIN. TIT. AND FILLRR1 BE 6ATED AS PART OF THE OVERALL rR0-Fl.T RRI&ATION • TOM. - - 4' 2BOX MN. Sig f1 of 2} ❑ FLATAHU ALBtlFOL 'GOIIRMBIA' (LOMon FLIT Tree) I By. NOTE: FOUNDATION FLANTNI65 ARE NOT PART OF NOR: ALL STREET TREES FILL BE RRkSATED AS PART C c"'. i/•�_ J�i :,� EXBTM6 Bus STOP THE rRO.ECT'S RE(iN® RBIOfRFJ.TMBIT AREA,OF THE OVERALL PRO.ECW T AGATION 5TST?1. SPECIMEN TREE: :-_ 1 _... - BENCH TO REMAN MU❑ LAR69 LTI-TRINK'ANGNOt' TREE. 24'MR . BOX SlgE . 6, - r( 1"4. .III . • STORtA'UTM BgfREATMEIT lTQt.YMTR BIOiREATMETIT FLANTB[ 1G - ACE[ PALMATITI (.YFRlese Mmle) TIC PLANTER 15 - 24 SF (SEE ONL 24 SF ram CNiL DRA NIN65) ❑ rARROT4. FRSICA (Person Pe Wa) _— - E'W ❑ STRTIA FSO)DOLAMeLLIA (-yWose Sea —Val --- ; - - - -. - — ^ —.. _ - - i •I - - - - 7 - - - -- I -- _ - - -- ENTRY PLAZA _ - Teem AL COLORTERS AN BIASHR-T-FLANCH S FOR- SEAlONAL DOLOR AND BULT-M BENCH SEATw6 • . - 1S9 T1eEE _ N61' 19' 24 49.40' N6 ' 19' - •. . 49.98'• - I T _ TOBTMb - - - - - ra Be REAOV® - FINE DEPARTMENT DOUBLEGEGK VALVE • — �. - • •. • - W N61' 19' 24" � 49.9 8� e F.D.C. (ATROXIMATE LOOATION 5.01" _-• (r. sroRMwATER , BIOTREATMENT • PLANTER IA - e5 IF .. ( ADDITIONAL CALIFORNV. L1 1 (5EP CNL ORANH65) - DRIVE FOUNDATION . NE I PERVIOUS ENTRT FAVIN&. M. /(J FLANTIN65 PER. NOTE EXI5TIN& 51'❑ TREE (rRVIOIf CONCRETE OR UNfr Ct— TO BE REMOVED rAVRS1 NE" ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMBe: ( ABOVE E%STN6 % ONC TO ROMAN - .. .. ArrROXA1ATE LOCATION SHOWN. rl OAK GROVE FOUNDATION PLANTINGS DURABLE. SNIDE-TOLRWr. LOIN FIATR-WE - s-HITS FLANTS SALTED FOR FORM MID SEASONAL - - -- INTEREST SHRUB 1415 5 TO CONFORM TO TOW REGAAREffiRS REGARDING VEBILIT' ALONG ORNE1AV5, rNHtE REGUIRp Hew S'-0' MN. YmE CONCRETE See— 61 ALONG OAK OJE AVENUE TO CONFORM • _ _ ELNATOR - TO CITY STANDARDS. EUSTN6 UTILITIES TO REMAM O .� LOBBY .. BMR FARING FR ' \� N[Ol. ORA ~ !TARS 2 I' _ � NEIN FaRVIOVS ENTRY AD.LA4arr BULDN6 COURT FAVN6 (FRVIOLS COW -Am y OR UNIT FAVRS) / • STOK~713t SIOTREATMENT FLANTER 7A - SO SF 0 4 Mer CNL DRAFe ) (w �^ PROPOSED NEW 43TORY ^ ZmTw616-0Trim TO Be ReHov® LNEJWORK BUILDING a i EOSTwb 249 OW TO Be REAOJ® _ ,J(`'-` � ♦ POPE .Ith FLOOR ROOF x- - 6AIlA&E TERRACE, 5R 511(Cr L2 NM PERVIOUS FIALwwYS STREETTREE^^^�_ '-� 1ENTRANCE - frRVIOUS CONCRETE OR 24' MN. BOX TKEE ►ER CRY - • I 0 i UNIT FAVORS) STREET TREE/TNEM® BLOCK L1575 ❑ NilRCUS RUBRA (Red 0&) FIN w • . ` , eOSTN6109TREE NOTES ` TO Be REMOVED - 1 ❑ SE: ARGNIIEG15 AND CIVIL DRAFINGS FOR 5ITE - -I - NEw P (FRv101F ORNEWY NFORMATION NOT SFELIPICN.LY oENTFiw ON --ZAP GOIGIRETE OR UNIT FAVORS) - THIS PLAN. • BaTREATMENr PLANTER 2B - PRIVATE OUTDOOR LOUNGEIDINING NM PRVIous rAVN6 N i ❑ ulY OPINED STREET TREES MAY NOT Be 10 Sp ('IATR O 5F (BEE GNL ORAFiN651 AREA FOR RESIDENTS rATOS (FERVIOY CONCRETE Ke'Iw® FSTHOUr A FERMR FROM THE PAR" - •1 , , DEFARTMELr. PRMTT FILL BE ISv" ONCE THE \ (1 OF BUILT-M DNwb oR UNrt PAVERS) FLANNM6 COMM5510N AP/ROVES THE PRO�CT. + / .FIG TABLE. b/d FRE FR R LOUNGE SEATING LOUNGE 5EA NEI IRRIGATION OIN FREJOJTR; R REAIN65) FyWTR 3B - STO5F . ❑ MBNT AREAS SHALL FITH A - APFROWAIE LOCATION S I■FN. C^TIO ^�^ _ 144 5F (SEE GNM. DRMVN65) ' I (5m L MIX OF 6 1 MIX OF bRA56E5. LOw SHRUBS. AND PERENNIALS . ND PORE I • _ 59LWTE2 FOR THER ABILITY TO THRIVE N E%ISTN6.K)fli UTILITY / / _ - - _ - - - — --- -- _. -. _- -. _— TREATMENT AREAS . POLE TO REMAIN- // J - - _ - 1 • ❑ ALL STREET TREES AND OTHER PLAMNG AREA5 EX6TN6 49 TREE _ — _ - _ - -- -� NC LONORS/R ELCL.OSaIRE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE PROPOett LIMITS. BUT • TO BE REMOVED l a - .. _ - - ■ ■ ■ CREATED FOR AND NSTALLED AS PART OF TAPS APPLICATION. 5NALL BE RRWATED BY TE MAw STIR IRRI6ATIOH ST5TEi. ADDITIONAL OAK 6R0/E FOUNDATION PLANTINGS rBt NOR ABOJE- ,r _ - _ --.�-,- -- 'S4_� µ, • � $$, $2' - - _ - . . ❑ LANDSCAPE PLAN S KE4LIRED TO MEET THE SGON5E VASCONTAINED IN THE Y"TMt - _ - -- -- - RR TION N LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS' FOR COMMERCIAL ELLER". PLANTWS FLAN. NEw FRV101M' FMLKYMY / - - .. (\ .S - _ '- • RAI&ATION PLAN. AND LAKV5C PE FNTER-BE (PRvIous CONCRETE-- N54' 5B' S9.W r CALGUATIOS. FILL BE SUBMITTED DUNKS THE OR IRNT PAVBVS) - 55.34' 1•. �. 1 Y --- AUDIT S REa1RED FOR FINAL NSPECTION. SMALLTREES: -�: ' - � , POR SEASONAL COLdR sTORMVH'ER BIOTRF.ATMBNT PLANTER 3n - • N54' SB' " 4 INTE1 STMALK(I e NTeenr (1 OF y. 2A• Mw. Box. E6.: - 1 sF (SEE CNL ORAFUN66/ S9 �{' 55" ❑ CRCIS FOREST PANSY MR d %W) ❑ GOIRM)S KOUSA (XOuss Doo—i) •�. .. ... -� - - -' SCREENING TREES _ _ . • • . - ❑ GIgNAHMU5 RETYUUS (FrM" T w) ,_� _ TALL. EVER6R®N TREES TO SCREEN BIxLDMb AND FROVOE 4 DAPPLED SHADE FOR LOUNGE ❑ ULMUS FARVIFOLN'i1RUE 6R0•N' SCREENNN PLANTING PRIVATE OUTDOOR LOUNGEIDINING - - - - - - - -- - -_ TALL, HARROW HED&M FOR FRNACY AT FRNATE PATIO ARCA5: AREA FOR RESIDENTS ❑ BAMMUSA TTXTILS 6RACI1I5 (OmMs BRnboO) (2 OF 2) PRTN BOLT-N KrrC Q"M. DINS NEw fi O' TALL YN000 FENCE (non-Inwive TOOL system) TABLE. SAS FIRE FIT R LO NSE SEATN6 OVER RAF�m GONGRETE CURB wurce: KIKUcm + rwmel ueslgn Uroup, reoruary Lu15. FIRSTCARBON 1�ni 1710NC)T11 28030009 • 04/2017 1 7_Iandscape_plan.cdr Exhibit 7 Landscaping Plan CITY OF BURLINGAME • 619-625 CALIFORNIA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.5 - Required Discretionary Approvals The project would require the following permits and approvals from the City: Introduction • Commercial Design Review for construction of a new commercial and mixed use building (Municipal Code Sections 25.31.045 and 25.57.010(c)(1), and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Q Specific Plan). Downtown Specific Plan Section 5.2 provides design guidelines specifically for commercial and mixed -use areas within the Downtown Specific Plan area, while Section 5.4 provides more general design guidelines that apply to all areas of Downtown. • Conditional Use Permit for building height. The proposed building is 54 feet 10 inches in height, which is under the 55 feet 0 inches maximum height allowed by the C-2, North California Drive Commercial District zone. A Conditional Use Permit is required if a building exceeds 35 feet 0 inches in height (Municipal Code Section 25.31.060(c)); • Condominium Permit for construction of the new building, since each live/work unit would be 41 privately owned (Municipal Code Section 26.30.020); and • Lot Merger to combine the three existing parcels into one parcel. Depending on the identified environmental impacts of the project, permits from other agencies may be required. If necessary, these permits and approvals will be described under the appropriate environmental issue in Section 3.0 of this IS/MND. 1.6 - Intended Uses of this Document This IS/MND has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and public agencies regarding the proposed project. The Draft IS/MND will be circulated for a minimum of 30 days, during which period comments concerning the analysis contained in the IS/MND should be sent to: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA, 94010 Phone: 650.558.7256 Fax: 650.696.3790 Email: rhurin@burlingame.org FirstCarbon Solutions Y\Publications\Clie(PN-IN)\2803\28030D09\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doc, 21 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ® Air Quality Resources ® Biological Resources ® Cultural/Tribal Cultural ® Geology/Soils Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ® Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ® Utilities/Services Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upo�ie roposed project, nothing further is required. Date: Z o/ Signed: FlrstCorbon Solutions YAPubHWions\C1ient(PN-JN)\2603\290300D9\iSMND\290300095-.g e619-625 CAD, D-ISM ND.t 23 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation Environmental Issues 1. Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Environmental Setting City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ The following is based on the site reconnaissance. The visual character of the project area is largely composed of man-made features such as residences, commercial buildings, telephone poles, streetlights, and landscaped trees. Adjacent land uses to the project site are an automobile service facility to the east, three-story multi -family residential buildings to the south, a retail building and a three-story multi -family residential building to the west, and a railroad right-of-way (Caltrain) to the north. Burlingame High School is located across the Caltrain tracks from the project site. Lighting within the project's vicinity is associated with street lighting, as well as building lighting from nearby residential and commercial buildings. The project site is not visible from any State designated scenic corridor. The project fronts California Drive, and tall eucalyptus trees that border the railroad have long been a dominant feature of Burlingame landscape. Segments of California Drive are classified as local scenic route and have scenic qualities worthy of recognition and protection. However, the portion of the road that the proposed project fronts is not a local scenic route. The City of Burlingame designates the road as local scenic connector in its General Plan, which is defined as "a segment of a scenic route where abutting properties are commercially industrially zoned" (Burlingame General Plan 1969). The project site is surrounded by commercial and residential uses. 24 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client(PN-IN)\2g03\2g03D009\ISMND\2g030D09 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr De ISMND.Cocx City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No impact. The City of Burlingame has not designated any scenic vistas in the area of the project site. Therefore, the project would not have any effect on a scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? Less than significant impact. The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is Interstate 280, located approximately 2.4 miles to the west. The project site is not within visible from any State designated scenic corridor. The City of Burlingame recognizes El Camino Real, also known as State Route 82, as a scenic highway. The project site is not visible from El Camino Real and is located approximately 0.36 mile southwest. As part of the proposed project, the applicant is proposing to remove an existing 24-inch-diameter red oak street tree along Oak Grove Avenue in order to accommodate a wider driveway apron into the project site. The tree to be removed was inspected by a City arborist and deemed to be in poor shape with decay in the limbs and trunk, and fungus growing on the trunk. The removed tree will be replaced with a 24-inch box red oak (Quercus rubra) since it is a themed block. The project site does not contain any rock outcroppings or historic buildings. The impact would be less than significant. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than significant impact. The project site is located along California Drive, which is fronted by a mixture of single-family, multi -family, retail, and commercial uses within the C-2, North California Drive Commercial District. The project site is on the northern edge of the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan planning area. The project is consistent with the Specific Plan's goal to establish sensitive transition between existing residential area and the downtown area. Section 5.2 (pages 5-3 through 5-12) provides design guidelines specifically for commercial and mixed use areas within the boundaries of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan area. Section 5.4 (pages 5- 22 through 5-26) provides more general design guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown. The following design review criteria for commercial development are outlined in the zoning code: 1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the City's commercial, industrial and mixed use area; and 2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and FirstCarbon Solutions 25 v:\Publications\Client(PN-IN)\2803\28030009\15MND\28030009 Burlingame 629-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and 4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and 5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and 6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. FCS conducted a visual analysis by creating computerized visual simulations using site photos and architectural plans for the proposed project. Exhibit 8 depicts the viewpoint locations and Exhibits 9a and 9b display street -level visual simulations of the project from California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue. The project is in a transition area between residential uses along Oak Grove Avenue and commercial uses along California Drive and downtown Burlingame. These exhibits depict the project's finished materials, building form, height and scale, and proposed landscaping. The proposed project conforms to setbacks of existing surrounding buildings. In Simulation 1, Exhibit 9a, the project is shown as it would appear from California Drive, a predominately commercial street. The new building would abut an automotive repair shop. It is taller than the other commercial buildings along this street but maintains the commercial character of this area. Simulation 2, Exhibit 9b, shows the proposed project in the context of the residential neighborhood on Oak Grove Avenue. It is a slightly taller building in comparison to the neighboring residential buildings as shown in Exhibits 9b; however, architectural features such as the fenestration patterns and a rooftop deck create consistency with the residential character of Oak Grove Avenue. The project complies with the Zoning Code (C-2, North California Drive Commercial District) and the Downtown Specific Plan (North California Drive Commercial District), which specify that no building shall exceed a height of 55 feet 0 inches. However, a Conditional Use Permit is required for any building, which exceeds 35 feet 0 inches in height. The proposed project building would be four stories and would have a height of approximately 54 feet 10 inches, thus requiring an application for a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant also revised the project plan to include more commercial space and increased the height of the ground floor after a design review session by the Planning Commission, which suggested that these revisions would make the space more viable for commercial/retail uses and would be consistent with the guidelines of the Downtown Specific Plan. The project also requires a Condominium Permit, which includes review of the location and size of the proposed building, parking layout, location, use of the common areas and trash enclosures, and landscaping. 26 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2903\28030009\ISMNO\2W30009 Burlingame 619 625 CAD, De ISMND,d,,. LN View 1 ` View 2 - I t ♦ / �\ j T � Project Site Source: Google Earth Aerial Base. FIRSTCARBON e Exhibit 8 SOLUTIONS:" Key Map For Visual Simulations 28030009 - 04/2018 1 8_visual_sim_key_map.cdr CITY OF BURLINGAME - 619-625 CALIFORNIA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Existing View - California Drive Simulated View - California Drive FIRSTCARBON SOLUTIONST" 28030009 • 04/2018 1 9a_California_drive_simulation.cdr Exhibit 9a California Drive Simulation CITY OF BURLINGAME • 619-625 CALIFORNIA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK y 13 ���� �'.. � �ij..� aid - +/v 7�► �.� J� t�%. r, '1t .�. �... '. ljk�l vp-rA AM U -^ P �j N \{� �.11r• � '��i's` +' fir` .(. • ��r� per,,'\�}e '• [^ � J�'I J� • y■. �'' r � r- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK F City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation The City's design review standards and processes will ensure that the project remains consistent with the design guidelines of the Downtown Specific Plan and would not significantly affect the existing Ems' visual character of the site or its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. L. i� d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than significant impact. The project would introduce new sources of lighting, including building -mounted light fixtures and light sources originating from inside the residential units. Lighting fixtures on the condominium building as well as on primary paths on the project site would be minimized to the most feasible extent. The project applicant will comply with the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 18.16 Electrical Code Section 410.10(f), which states: 1. Exterior lighting on all residential and commercial properties shall be designed and located so that the cone of light and/or glare from the lighting element is kept entirely on the property or below the top of any fence, edge, or wall. 2. On all residential properties exterior lighting outlets and fixtures shall not be located more than nine (9) feet above adjacent grade or required landing; walls or portions of walls shall not be floodlit; only shielded light fixtures which focus light downward shall be allowed, except for illuminated street numbers required by the fire department. Low-level lighting would be installed throughout the project site for safety and security purposes, as well as operation and maintenance. However, the lighting would be shielded and directed downward to minimize the potential for spillover (light trespass) onto adjacent land uses. The new source of lighting would not create a substantial difference in day or nighttime views in the project area relative to the urban environment and surrounding land uses around the project site. The City's review will ensure that final design plans include downward -directed light fixtures that are low - mounted to reduce light trespass onto adjacent properties, in accordance with the electrical code regulations cited above, which would result in lighting impacts that would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None. FirstCarbon Solutions 33 YAPuhlicatlons\Client(PN-1N(\2803\2803DD09\ISMND\280300D9 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation Less than 1 Significant Potentially I Impact with j Less than Significant '. Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues 1 Impact j Incorporated Impact l Impact .......... ...._....... .._.__.... _................. . _ . ...... ..:-......... ... . 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the El El El Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, El El El or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland j (as defined by Public Resources Code section ❑ ❑ ❑ 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ El❑ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- forest land to non -forest use? ; e) ................................................................._..................................................................... Involve other changes in the existing .---------- ....................................................................... ................................. environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, ❑ ❑ ❑ to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Environmental Setting There are no farmlands or timberland in the project area. The Department of Conservation Farmland Inventory Map for San Mateo County shows the project area as Urban Land. Environmental Evaluation In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\PubllwNons\Client(PN-JN(\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.dom 35 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No impact. The project is not identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as no agricultural lands are found within or adjacent to the City's limits. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program mapping for San Mateo Count designates the project site as "Urban and Built -Up Land." Much of the land surrounding the site is highly developed. Therefore, there would be no conversion of any farmland to non-agricultural use because of the project. No impacts would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. The project site is located in the C-2 district designated primarily for service commercial uses, which is a non-agricultural zoning district. The land is not encumbered by a Williamson Act n contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or with J a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No impact. The project site is located in the C-2 district designated primarily for service commercial uses, which is a non -forest land zoning district. No forest land is located on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Accordingly, no impact would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No impact. The project site is located in the C-2 district designated primarily for service commercial uses, which is a non -forest land zoning district. No forest land is located on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. As such, project implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. No impact would occur. 36 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publlcatlons\client(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 6194125 C Dr Dev ISMND.dom L n +ul City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? No impact. As stated in Impact 2.2a), there are no existing agricultural operations adjacent to or in immediate vicinity of the project site. As such, no impact would occur. nthe L Mitigation Measures None. 17 I 1 11 I I I I C FirstCarbon Solutions 37 \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Cllent(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= C J City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Less than Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: _ .............. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ applicable air quality plan? ........................................... ......... ......... b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ............. - ............---------------........._.... ................. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Environmental Setting Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Significant Mitigation ® ❑ ❑ N El ........ ® ........ ❑ I ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ..... :. ❑ .......................... _......................................................._............................ ❑ ® ❑ I The project is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), which consists of the entirety of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties; the western portion of Solano County; and the southern portion of Sonoma County. The Air Basin is characterized by complex terrain consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and bays. The regional climate of the Air Basin is characterized by mildly dry summers and moderately wet winters. The region experiences moderate humidity, and wind patterns consisting mild onshore breezes during the day. The location of a strong subtropical high-pressure cell located in the Pacific Ocean induces foggy mornings and moderate temperatures during the summer, as well as occasional rainstorms during the winter. The air pollutants for which national and state standards have been promulgated and which are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the Bay Area include ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), respirable particulate matter (PMio), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). In addition, toxic air contaminants are of concern in the Bay Area. Each of these pollutants is briefly described below. Other pollutants that are regulated but not considered an issue in the project area are sulfur dioxide, vinyl chloride, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and lead; the project would not emit substantial quantities of those pollutants; therefore, they are not discussed. 38 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publindons\Client(PN-1NA2903\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.daa I r I 1 n III City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation • Ozone is a gas that is formed when reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)— both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust —undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are conducive to its formation. Heath effects can include the following: irritate respiratory system; reduce lung function; breathing pattern changes; reduction of breathing capacity; inflame and damage cells that line the lungs; make lungs more susceptible to infection; aggravate asthma; aggravate other chronic lung diseases; cause permanent lung damage; some immunological changes; increased mortality risk; vegetation and property damage. • Nitrogen dioxide: Health effects from nitrogen dioxide can include the following: potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra -pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; contribution to atmospheric discoloration; increased visits to hospital for respiratory illnesses. • Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fuels. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winter morning, with little to no wind, when surface -based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines —unlike ozone —and motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the Bay Area, the highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. Potential health effects from CO ranges depending on exposure: slight headaches; nausea; aggravation of angina pectoris (chest pain) and other aspects of coronary heart disease; decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; impairment of central nervous system functions; possible increased risk to fetuses; death. • Respirable Particulate Matter (PMio) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) consist of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets 10 microns and 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter. Some sources of particulate matter, like pollen and windstorms, are naturally occurring. However, in populated areas, most particulate matter is caused by road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities. Health effects from short-term exposure (hours/days) can include the following: irrigation of the eyes, nose, throat; coughing; phlegm; chest tightness; shortness of breath; aggravate existing lung disease, causing asthma attacks and acute bronchitis; those with heart disease can suffer heart attacks and arrhythmias. Health effects from long-term exposure can include the following: reduced lung function; chronic bronchitis; changes in lung morphology; or death. • Toxic air contaminants (TACs) refers to a diverse group of air pollutants that can affect human health, but have not had ambient air quality standards established for them. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is a toxic air contaminant that is emitted from construction equipment and diesel fueled vehicles and trucks. Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel particulate matter exposure include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. Studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths FirstCorbon Solutions 39 \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2803\280300D9\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= u City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration among those suffering from respiratory problems. Human studies on the carcinogenicity of diesel particulate matter demonstrate an increased risk of lung cancer, although the increased risk cannot be clearly attributed to diesel exhaust exposure. Construction and operation of the project would be subject to applicable Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) rules and requirements. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were developed to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality. Where available, the significance criteria established or recommended by the BAAQMD were used to make the following determinations. The significance thresholds used in this analysis are based on BAAQMD standards and are shown below in Table 1. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project's individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region's existing air quality conditions. Project construction and operational impacts are assessed separately below. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) analysis completed by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) and the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Technical Memorandum prepared by FCS. The CaIEEMod modeling data and the HRA Technical Memorandum are provided in Appendix B. Table 1: BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance Construction Thresholds I Operational Thresholds ' Average Daily ..._....___......._._ _..___.__._....___.._.......__._................._._._... ___.....-------------- _._ Pollutant Emissions j Average Daily Emissions Annual Average Emissions Criteria Air Pollutants ROG 54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day 10 tons/year ___........................_...........___......._..............._._......._._._...............,.......................................................... NOx .............. 54 pounds/day 1 54 pounds/day 10 tons/year PMlo� __. .................... 82 pounds/day 82 pounds/day 15 tons/year PM2.5 54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day 10 tons/year CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Construction Dust 1 Fugitive Dust Ordinance or other Not Applicable Best Management Practices Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources _....------------- .._............. _......... ......_.............._....._.............___............................_.........................................._. i -------------- _--------------- _------------------------ _----------------- __---------- __._........__. Excess Cancer Risk per one million....__ per one million........._........................................._� _............_ Chronic or Acute Hazard Index ......................................_.._........_10 ._....._10 1.0 1.0 Incremental annual average PM2.s 0.3 µg/m3 j 0.3 µg/m3 qp FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Cllent(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.d= C F, F E I I L �I City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 1(cont.): BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation __.._._.._.....__.____...... .__....._...._..._...__...._..... _._.._____..__..__.____.._._______.._....._._.._._.___.._._—._......_.___—__._.__._.� i Construction Thresholds ! Operational Thresholds Average Daily Pollutant I Emissions ; Average Daily Emissions TAnnual Average Emissions Health Risks and Hazards for Sensitive Receptors (Cumulative from All Sources within 1,000-foot Zone of Influence) and Cumulative Thresholds for New Sources Excess Cancer Risk 100 per 1 million Chronic Hazard Index ! 10.0 AnnualAverage PM2.5 ........_�'g_µg�m3._._..........._........._.._..............._...._........... .......... ........... ... _...... Accidental Release of Acutely Hazardous Air Pollutants 'Storage or use of acutely hazardous materials Accidental Release of Acutely locating near receptors or new receptors locating I None Hazardous Air Pollutants near stored or used acutely hazardous materials j considered significant Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides j PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 µm or less PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 µm or less Source: BAAQMD 20171. .................................... Environmental Evaluation Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant impact. The project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), where air quality is regulated by the BAAQMD. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for identifying non -attainment and attainment areas for each criteria pollutant within the Air Basin. The Air Basin is designated non -attainment for State standards for 1-hour and 8-hour ozone, 24-hour respirable particulate matter (PMlo), annual PM10, and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5).2 To address regional air quality standards, the BAAQMD has adopted several air quality policies and plans, the most recent of which is the 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP),' adopted in April 2017. The 1 BAAQMD. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. Website: http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/cega_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed September 22, 2017. 2 BAAQMD. 2017. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. January. Website: http://www.baagmd.gov/research-and-data/air- quality-standards-and-attainment-status. Accessed May 22, 2017. 3 BAAQMD. 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Website: http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017- FirstCarbon Solutions 41 \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publintions\Uient(PN-1NI\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.dom 17 I City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2017 Clean Air Plan serves as the regional air quality plan (AQP) for the Air Basin for attaining federal ambient air quality standards. The primary goals of the 2017 CAP are to protect public health and protect the climate. The 2017 CAP acknowledges that the BAAQMD's two stated goals of protection are closely related. As such, the 2017 CAP identifies a wide range of control measures intended to decrease both criteria pollutants' and greenhouse gases (GHGs).5 In September 2010, BAAQMD adopted their final Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (2010 CAP),' which became the most recent ozone plan for the Air Basin. The 2010 CAP identifies how the Air Basin would achieve compliance with the state 1-hour air quality standard for ozone, and how the region will reduce ozone from transporting to other basins downwind wind of the Air Basin. The 2017 CAP updates the BAAQMD's 2010 CAP, pursuant to air quality planning requirements defined in the California Health & Safety Code. The 2017 CAP also accounts for projections of population growth provided by Association of Bay Area Governments and vehicle miles traveled provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and identifies strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 CAP if it would result in substantial new regional emissions not foreseen in the air quality planning process. The BAAQMD does not provide a numerical threshold of significance for project -level consistency analysis with AQPs. Therefore, the following criteria will be used for determining a project's consistency with the AQP. • Criterion 1: Does the project support the primary goals of the AQP? • Criterion 2: Does the project include applicable control measures from the AQP? • Criterion 3: Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQP control measures? Criterion 1 The primary goals of the 2017 CAP, the current AQP to date, are to: • Attain air quality standards; • Reduce population exposure to unhealthy air and protecting public health in the Bay Area; and • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate. As discussed under Impacts 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d and GHG Impacts 7a and 7b, the project would not create a localized violation of state or federal air quality standards, significantly contribute to cumulative non -attainment pollutant violations, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant clean-air-plan/attachment-a_ proposed-final-cap-vol-l-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed May 24, 2017. ` EPA has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six of the most common air pollutants —carbon monoxide, lead, ground -level ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide —known as "criteria" air pollutants (or simply "criteria pollutants"). A greenhouse gas is any gaseous compound in the atmosphere that is capable of absorbing infrared radiation, thereby trapping and holding heat in the atmosphere. By increasing the heat in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases are responsible for the greenhouse effect, which ultimately leads to global warming. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010. 2010 Multi Pollutant Clean Air Plan. Website: http://www.baagmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans. Accessed May 24, 2017. 42 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publlcatians\Client(PN.JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\29030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa i� I I L City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation concentrations, or result in significant GHG emissions. The project is therefore consistent with Criterion 1. Criterion 2 The 2017 CAP contains 85 control measures aimed at reducing air pollutants and GHGs at the local, regional, and global levels. Along with the traditional stationary, area, mobile source, and transportation control measures, the 2017 CAP contains a number of control measures designed to protect the climate and promote mixed use, compact development to reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to pollutants from stationary and mobile sources.' The 2017 CAP also includes an account of the implementation status of control measures identified in the 2010 CAP. None of the stationary source control measures contained in the 2017 CAP are directly applicable to the project, which is a proposed mixed -use development that would not contain any stationary sources. In addition, none of the mobile source measures or land use and local impact measures contained in the 2017 CAP directly apply to the project. The project would, however, be consistent I with Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) D-2 and D-3 of the 2017 CAP as follows: • TCM D-2 will improve pedestrian facilities and encourage walking by funding projects that Ell improve pedestrian access to transit, employment and major activity centers. Improvements may include sidewalks/paths, benches, reduced street width, reduced intersection turning r j radii, crosswalks with activated signals, curb extensions/bulbs, buffers between sidewalks and H traffic lanes, and street trees. I • TCM D-3 will support and promote land use patterns, policies, and infrastructure investments that support higher density mixed -use, residential and employment development near transit in order to facilitate walking, bicycling and transit use. EExisting infrastructure would allow for easy access to and from the project site using public transportation. An existing bus stop bench along California Drive would remain in front of the project j� building for use. The project site is also located less than 0.5 mile from Burlingame Station, the closest IJ train station. Proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities would connect to existing infrastructure. Continuous pedestrian facilities exist between nearby transit stops and the project site. PImplementation of the project would provide housing near a mix of existing land uses. Adjacent land uses to the project site are an automobile service facility to the east, three-story multi -family j residential buildings to the south, a retail building and three-story multi -family residential building to u the west, and a railroad right-of-way (Caltrain) to the north. Burlingame High School is located across the Caltrain tracks from the project site. For the reasons listed above (transportation factors), �I the project would be consistent with TCM D-2 and D-3 of the 2017 CAP. Gclean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-l-pdf.pdf?la=en. BAAQMD 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Website: http://www.baagmd.gov/-/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017- Accessed March 12, 2017. FirstCarbon Solutions 43 \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publiptions\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation City of Burlingame r l 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The 2010 CAP also contained Energy and Climate measures that were carried forward in the 2017 CAP. Relative to the Energy and Climate measures contained in the 2017 CAP, the Project would be consistent with all applicable measures: . Energy Efficiency: The Project Developer would be required to conform to the energy efficiency requirements of the California Building Standards Code, also known as Title 24, as applied to residential land uses. Specifically, the project must implement the requirements of the most recent Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which is the current version of Title 24. The 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (which are updated on an approximately three- year cycle) went into effect on January 1, 2017, which continue to improve upon the 2013 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. For each year of construction, in both newly constructed buildings and alterations to existing buildings, the 2013 Standards (for residential and nonresidential buildings) were expected to reduce the growth in electricity use by 555.5 gigawatt-hours per year and to reduce the growth in peak electrical demand by 148.4 megawatts. The 2013 Standards were also expected to reduce the growth in natural gas use by 7.04 million therms per year beyond the prior 2008 Standards. Overall, the 2013 Standards used 25 percent less energy for lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and water heating than the 2008 Standards. For comparison purposes, single-family homes built to the new 2016 standards will use about 28 percent less energy for lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and water heating than those built to the 2013 standards. In 30 years, California will have saved enough energy to power 2.2 million homes, reducing the need to build 12 additional power plants. • Renewable Energy. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) would provide electricity and natural gas service to the project site. PG&E facilities include nuclear, natural gas, and hydroelectric facilities. PG&E's 2012 power mix consisted of nuclear generation (21.0 percent), large hydroelectric facilities (11.0 percent) and renewable resources (19.0 percent), such as wind, geothermal, biomass, and small hydro. The remaining portion came from natural gas (27.0 percent), and unspecified sources (21.0 percent). Urban Heat Island Mitigation and Shade Tree Planting. The project would incorporate landscaping throughout the site. Several board -formed concrete planters and street trees would be installed along the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue frontages. Two existing street trees along California Drive would be replaced with two new street trees (London plane). One of the two existing street trees along Oak Grove Avenue would be replaced under the City's tree removal ordinance with a red oak, and additional planters would be installed at the rear of the building. In summary, the project would not conflict with any applicable measures under the 2017 CAP and is therefore consistent with Criterion 2. Criterion 3 The project will not preclude extension of a transit line or bike path, propose excessive parking beyond parking requirements, or otherwise create an impediment or disruption to implementation 44 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-1N(\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doot I City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation of any AQP control measures. As shown above, the project would incorporate several AQP control measures as project design features. The project is therefore consistent with Criterion 3. Summary As addressed in Impacts 3b through 3e below, with incorporation of MM AIR-1 and MM AIR-2 the project would not violate air quality standards, result in a cumulative contribution of a non - attainment pollutant, expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollution concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As discussed in GHG Impacts 7a and 7b, the project would not result in significant GHG emissions or conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Thus, the project would not conflict with the 2017 CAP. Therefore, impacts associated with conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the 2017 CAP would be less than significant. MM AIR-1 During construction activities, the following air pollution control measures shall be !F L implemented: • Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. CI • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. (- • All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using El wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. LJ F F, C • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks shall be paved as soon as possible. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours of a complaint or issue notification. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM AIR-2 The developer or Project Applicant shall ensure all off -road construction equipment in excess of 50 horsepower used on -site by the developer or contractors is equipped with engines meeting the EPA Tier IV off -road engine emission standards. The construction contractor shall maintain a log of equipment use at the construction site with make, model, serial number, and certification level of each piece of construction equipment that will be available for review by City building inspection staff. FirstCarbon Solutions 45 \\10.200.1.5\ade<\Publlwtions\Cllmt(PN-JNA2803\28030009USMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= 1-1 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-615 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Ll b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. This impact relates to localized criteria pollutant impacts from project construction and operation. Potential localized impacts would result in exceedances of state or federal standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PMlo and PM2.5), or carbon monoxide (CO). NOx emissions are of concern because of potential health impacts from exposure to NOx emissions during both construction and operation and as a precursor in the formation of airborne ozone. PM,oand PM2.s are of concern during construction because of the potential to emit exhaust emissions from the operation of off -road construction equipment and fugitive dust during earth -disturbing activities (construction fugitive dust). CO emissions are of concern during project operation because operational CO hotspots are related to increases in on - road vehicle congestion. ROG emissions are also important because of their participation in the formation of airborne ozone. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and that can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, elderly, and young children. Construction and operational emissions are discussed separately below. Construction Emissions During construction, fugitive dust (PMlo and PM2.5) would be generated from site grading and other earth -moving activities. The majority of this fugitive dust would remain localized and would be deposited near the project site. However, the potential for impacts from fugitive dust exists unless control measures are implemented to reduce the emissions from this source. Exhaust emissions would also be generated from the operation of the off -road construction equipment, as shown in Table 2. Construction Fugitive Dust BAAQMD does not recommend a numerical threshold for fugitive dust particulate matter emissions. Instead, BAAQMD bases the determination of significance for fugitive dust on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented. If all appropriate emissions control measures are implemented for a project as recommended by BAAQMD, then fugitive dust emissions during construction are not considered significant. As required by MM AIR-1, the project would implement BMPs recommended by BAAQMD for fugitive dust emissions during construction. Therefore, with mitigation, short-term construction impacts associated with violating an air quality standard or contributing substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation would be less than significant. Construction: ROG, NOW PM1o, PM1.s Based on project -specific information provided by the Project Applicant, construction of the project was assumed to begin in January of 2019 and conclude in June of 2020. Construction emissions would decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory U 46 FirstCorbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publ[ntions\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM N D.do L City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation requirements if the construction schedule moves to later years. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by CEQA guidelines. Average daily construction emissions are compared with the significance thresholds in Table 3. Table 2: Annual Construction Emissions (Unmitigated) jTons/Year Construction Activity ROG NOx PMla (Exhaust) PMz,s (Exhaust) 2019 Demolition 0.004 1 0.042 0.002 I 0.002 Site Preparation 0.009 0.119 0.004 0.004 Grading 0.003 0.027 0.002 I 0.001 I Building Construction (2019) 0.091 0.938 0.051 0.047 2020 Building Construction (2020) 0.035 I J 0.357 I 0.018 0.017 - Paving 0.001 j 0.011 0.001 0.001 Architectural Coating 0.311 0.012 0.001 I 0.001 1 TotalConstruction Emissions 0.453 !�- 1.506 0.118 0.083 Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PMlo = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter PM2,5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Unrounded numbers from the CalEEMod output were used Source: CaIEEMod Output (see Appendix A). for all calculations. i Table 3: Construction Emissions (Unmitigated Average Daily Rate) ? Air Pollutants _- _ .-...___._----- ____._....__ __.__._ .---- _..__.._.._........_. _.. Parameter IIh__.........__._..._..__-__.._.... ROG NOx PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust) - I Total Emissions (tons/year) i 0.453 1.506 0.118 0.083 ............... .............._.....,................................................................................... Total Emissions (Ibs/year) ........................................................... 906.8 __................................. .................... 3,011.6 .............. .__.............. ...... .,.,...,..... 235.2 ....................... ............ ........ ..._..,...� 165.2 i Average Daily Emissions (Ibs/day)l I 2.4- 8.1 0.6 0.4 ...,._....,_,..._.._...._------- -.......... ._,_..._.._.._._._._.._..........._.._....,_.d,_....__......__ Significance Threshold (Ibs/day) .....................__......_;.-........,_.._.._......___..___..._...�,_.,_.._......_.....-.....,-........_...___t..._..__._,,._-'.,_..,,_-..._._,.....-a 54 54 82 54 I Exceeds Significance Threshold? I No No No No FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publlwtions\Client(PN-1N)\2603U8030009\ISMNDU8030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.doa 47 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 3 (cont.): Construction Emissions (Unmitigated Average Daily Rate) Air Pollutants ......-------- ........._....................................-.........------ .--- .............-------- .........-----.,...------------- ...---- --------- ...._...-- ------------------- ------------------------ --------------------- Parameter ROG ( NOx I PM10 (Exhaust) I PM2.5 (Exhaust) Notes: 1 Calculated by dividing the total Ibs by the total 373 working days of construction for the duration of construction (2019-2020). Calculations use unrounded totals. Ibs = pounds ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix A). As shown in Table 3, the construction emissions from all construction activities are well below the recommended thresholds of significance; therefore, the construction of the project would have less than significant impact in regards to emissions ROG, NOx, exhaust PMIo, and exhaust PM2.5. As previously discussed, the project would implement MM AIR-1 with BMPs recommended by the BAAQMD to reduce potential impacts related to fugitive dust emissions from use of the construction equipment. Therefore, project construction would have a less than significant impact after implementation of mitigation. Operational Emissions Pollutants of concern include ROG, NOx, PM1o, and PIV12.5. The project operational emissions for the respective pollutants were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator model (CaIEEMod version 2016.3.2). Operations were assumed to begin in 2020. For reasons previously discussed, the BAAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Significance thresholds were used. The operational emissions were modeled for summer and winter seasons. The results for the estimated maximum daily emissions are presented in Table 4, while unmitigated annual emissions from project operations are presented in Table 5. Table 4: Daily Operational Emissions (Unmitigated) Emissions Source .............................. Area Energy Mobile Estimated Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds of Significance .................. .............. ..... ........... ..................... ._............._......1-- Exceeds Significance Threshold? ROG 1.48 Pounds per Day NOx PMIo 0.14 0.45 0.06 ........-............. 0.00 _.... ......................_....... 0.83 ............................................ 1 0.85 ..__.. ......... 1.04 .......... ................................................... 1.30 54 .......................... _........... _;..... 82 _........................ No No No �l U 48 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publlcatlons\Cllent(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\29030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.dom F E A City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Table 4 (cont.): Daily Operational Emissions (Unmitigated) Emissions Source Pounds per Day ROG I NOx Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrous oxides PMlO = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.s = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter Source: CaIEEMod Output (see Appendix A). (�1---- .._............-------- ----- .................................................................................... . ....... ................ ............. .... ........ u E r L� E Table 5: Annual Operational Emissions (Unmitigated) Tons per Year ( Emissions Source ROG j —�'--<0.01 NOx I PM10 PM2.s Area 0.21 <0.01 <0.01 Energy <0.01 0.01 ! <0.01 T <0.01 Mobile 0.05 _...______.._...__...._.._.._...._,._...._.._._._,_._..._____—._..,.,..__,—..,,.__._...__....____._1________._. 0.15 0.15 ! 0.04 �...._..._------ Estimated Annual Emissions i 0.26 i _ _._....... _.................. __ ._.............__.} ... ._.... .......__...._,.._.._...r......,._.._._ 0.16 0 15 -... ................._T_-_.__..5 0.05 Thresholds of Significance 10 ----- .......— ____._...._....._ 10 j 15 .......... ____... 10 I Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No d NoteS ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter Source: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix A). As shown in Table 4 and Table 5, the project would not result in operational -related air pollutants or precursors that would exceed BAAQMD's thresholds of significance, indicating that ongoing project operations would not be considered to have the potential to generate a significant quantity of air pollutants. Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant. (I I Carbon Monoxide Hotspot The CO emissions from traffic generated by the project are a concern at the local level. Congested I intersections can result in high, localized concentrations of CO. The BAAQMD recommends a screening analysis to determine if a project has the potential to contribute to a CO hotspot. The screening criteria identify when site -specific CO dispersion modeling is necessary. The project would result in a less than significant impact to air quality for local CO if the following screening criteria are met: FirstCarbon Solutions 49 C \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Cllmt(PN-JN)U603\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= City of Burlingame —� Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration . The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; or • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; or • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below -grade roadway). As indicated in Section 16, Transportation/Traffic, the project would not conflict with the applicable congestion management plan. No intersections impacted by the project would experience traffic volumes of 44,000 vehicles per hour. According to the transportation analysis prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (2018), the intersection of Oak Grove Avenue and El Camino Real would experience the highest cumulative peak -hour traffic volumes among the intersections impacted by the project, with 2,501 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour for the Existing Plus Project Scenario (Appendix H). Furthermore, the adjacent roadways are not located in an area where vertical or horizontal atmospheric mixing is substantially limited. Therefore, based on the above criteria, the project would not exceed the CO screening criteria and would have a less than significant impact related to CO. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As shown in Tables 4, 5, and 6, the project's construction and operational emissions are below BAAQMD's project -level thresholds of significance. The thresholds of significance represent the allowable amount of emissions each project can generate without generating a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts. As discussed above, the region is non -attainment for the federal and state ozone standards, the state PM10 standards, and the federal and state PM2.5 standards. Therefore, a project that would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance on a project level also would not be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to these regional air quality impacts. Construction Emissions Emissions from construction -related activities are generally short-term in duration but may still cause adverse air quality impacts. The project would generate emissions from construction equipment exhaust, worker travel, and fugitive dust. These construction emissions include criteria air pollutants from the operation of heavy construction equipment. As provided in the discussion under Impact 3b, the project's construction emissions would not exceed any significance threshold adopted for this project after application of mitigation. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant cumulative impact during construction after incorporation of MM AIR-1. So FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Cllent(PN-JN(\28D3\29030009\ISMND\29030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa I C a City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Operational Emissions U Operational pollutants of concern include ROG, NOx, CO, and particulate matter (PMlo and PM2.5). As provided in the discussion under Impact 3b, the project's operational emissions would not exceed any significance threshold adopted for this project. Therefore, project operations would have a less than significant cumulative impact. Ell d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. A sensitive receptor is defined by the FBAAQMD as the following: "Facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals, and residential areas." Existing sensitive residential F1receptors are located to the west, south and north of the project site. Burlingame High School is located across the Caltrain/Freight line northeast from the project site. Burlingame Montessori is located 260 feet east of the project site. nSchool U The following four criteria were applied to determine the significance of project emissions to sensitive receptors: LJ • Criterion 1: Construction of the project would not result in an exceedance of the health risk significance thresholds. • Criterion 2: Operation of the project would not result in an exceedance of the health risk significance thresholds. • Criterion 3: The cumulative health impact would not result in an exceedance of the cumulative health risk significance thresholds. • Criterion 4: A CO hotspot assessment must demonstrate that the project would not result in F the development of a CO hotspot that would cause an exceedance of the CO ambient air quality standards. FCriterion 1: Project Construction Toxic Air Pollutants An assessment was made of the potential health impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors E resulting from the emissions of TACs during construction. A summary of the assessment is provided below, while the detailed assessment is provided in the HRA Technical Memorandum included in Appendix B of this IS/MND. FDPM has been identified by the ARB as a carcinogenic substance. Major sources of DPM include off - road construction equipment and heavy-duty delivery truck and worker activities. For purposes of Fthis analysis, DPM is represented as exhaust emissions of PM2.5. Estimation of Construction DPM Emissions F,Construction DPM emissions (as PM2.s exhaust) were estimated using CaIEEMod version 216.3.2, as described under the discussion for Impact 3b. Construction was assumed to occur in a single phase and last for 18 months. The construction DPM emissions were assumed to be distributed over the Cproject i area with a working schedule of 8 hours per day and 5 days per week. FirstCarbon Solutions 51 L\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publicatlons\Client (PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030D09 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dw ISMND.dm lJ City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Construction exhaust emissions of DPM are shown in Table 6. Table 6: Project DPM Construction Emissions —No Mitigation ........................... ......... .__............. _.._.__...._....._.._............_....._,_..._......._..._.........._..._.----.._......_`.........__._.............._.----....__ � j On -site DPM ____...._. .._____......._.__............__....._. i Off -site DPM(l) i . ....__... ._...._.,— (as PM2.s Exhaust) (as PMZ,s Exhaust) Total PM2.5 Year (tons/year) (tons/year) i (tons/year) Annual Construction Emissions (Without Mitigation)(') 2019 j 5.80E-02 6.60E-04 5.87E-02 2020 1.97E-02 j 1.60E-04 1.99E-02 Note: Il) The off -site emissions are estimated over the construction vehicle travel route from the project, north along California Drive for approximately 2,500 feet. Source: Attachment A of the HRA Technical Memorandum contained in Appendix B of this IS/MND. Estimation of Cancer Risks The BAAQMD has developed a set of guidelines for estimating cancer risks that provide adjustment factors that emphasize the increased sensitivities and susceptibility of young children to exposures to TACs (BAAQMD 2016). These adjustment factors include age -sensitivity weighting factors, age - specific daily breathing rates, and age -specific time -at-home factors. The recommended method for the estimation of cancer risk is shown in the equations below with the cancer risk adjustment factors provided in Table 7 for several types of sensitive/residential receptors (infant, child, and adult). Where: Cancer Risk = CDPM x Inhalation Exposure Factor (EQ-1) Cancer Risk = Total individual excess cancer risk defined as the cancer risk a hypothetical individual faces if exposed to carcinogenic emissions from a particular source for specified exposure durations; this risk is defined as an excess risk because it is above and beyond the background cancer risk to the population; cancer risk is expressed in terms of risk per million exposed individuals. CDPM = Period average DPM air concentration calculated from the air dispersion model in lag/ma Inhalation is the most important exposure pathway to impact human health from DPM and the inhalation exposure factor is defined as follows: Inhalation Exposure Factor = CPF x EF x ED x DBR x AAF/AT (EQ-2) Where: CPF = Inhalation cancer potency factor for the TAC: 1.1(mg/kg-day)-1 for DPM EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) ED = Exposure duration (years of construction) h 52 FirstCarbon Solutions \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publlcatlons\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa �i C City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation AAF = set of age -specific adjustment factors that include age sensitivity factors (ASF), daily breathing rates (DBR), and time at home factors (TAH)—see Table 7. AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged (days) FThe OEHHA-recommended values for the various cancer risk parameters, shown in EQ 2, above, are provided in Table 7. F Table 7: Exposure Assumptions for Cancer Risk F L F 17 LJ I I - - - - -- -- - -------------------- - -- -- - ------------ - -------- -- Exposure Frequency Age Sensitivity Daily Breathing I Exposure Factors Time at Home Rate (DBR) i>1 Receptor Type ! Hours/day ! Days/year Duration (years) (ASF) Factor (TAH) (%) (IL/kg-day) Y......__.............._...._...._......_.._........_...._i.................._....._.,....._..i._......._...___,......,,......a_........._..___..........___,._---- Sensitive/Residential—Infant _----- _.._.,._._..__...__._._.__i..,,...,.,.__.,.,_........... .,..,,.,..,.__..1............ _.......... ,---------- ---,._.......'1 _....._.,.._........... ...-..__._..____------- _..__.......................,...__...._...__._____..—.�...._ 1 3rd Trimester 24 350 i 0.25 _.._.._-----._......._... -......._..... 10 85 361 i 0 to 1 year 24 j 350 ; 1 10 85 1,090 1 to 2 years 24 �1 350 1 10 ' 85 j 1,090 !f Sensitive Receptor —Child 13 to 16 years 24 350 2 — 3 73 J� 572 '• Sensitive Receptor —Adult > 16 years i 24 f 350 1 2 1 72 261 Notes: The daily breathing rates recommended by the BAAQMD for sensitive/residential receptors assume the 95th percentile breathing rates for all individuals less than 2 years of age and 80th percentile breathing rates for all older individuals. (L/kg-day) = liters per kilogram body weight per day i Source: Table 3 of HRA Technical Memorandum contained in Appendix B of this IS/MND I n Estimation of Non -Cancer Chronic Hazards uAn evaluation of the potential non -cancer effects of chronic chemical exposures was also conducted. Adverse health effects are evaluated by comparing the annual receptor concentration of each !� chemical compound with the appropriate reference exposure limit (REQ. Available RELs u promulgated by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) were considered in the assessment. �j u Risk characterization for non -cancer health hazards from TACs is expressed as a hazard index (HI). The HI is a ratio of the predicted concentration of the project's emissions to a concentration considered acceptable to public health professionals, termed the REL. To quantify non -carcinogenic impacts, the hazard index approach was used. HI = Cann/REL (EQ-3) First[arbon Solutions 53 G \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client)PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= 71 L_J City of Burlingame f� Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Where: HI = chronic hazard index Cann = annual average concentration of TAC as derived from the air dispersion model (µg/m3) REL = reference exposure level above which a significant impact is assumed to occur (µg/m3) The hazard index assumes that chronic sub -threshold exposures adversely affect a specific organ or organ system (toxicological endpoint). For each discrete chemical exposure, target organs presented in regulatory guidance were used. To calculate the hazard index, each chemical concentration or dose is divided by the appropriate toxicity reference exposure level. For compounds affecting the same toxicological endpoint, this ratio is summed. Where the total equals or exceeds 1, a health hazard is presumed to exist. For purposes of this assessment, the TAC of concern is DPM for which the CEHHA has defined a REL for DPM of 5 µg/m3. The principal toxicological endpoint assumed in this assessment was through inhalation. The estimated health and hazard impacts at the maximum impacted sensitive receptor (MIR) from the project's construction emissions are provided in Table 8. Table 8: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards during Construction—Unmitigated __.......____.........._._........__........_................... ... .....___..............__....._._.__-------- —_------ ____...—.._...__._.......__....__._....._.__..........__.._.....__._.__r._........___.._...._..__...._ _ _....______; Cancer Risk Chronic Non -Cancer I Annual Pill Source (risk per million) Hazard Index(2) ! Concentration (µg/m3) Risks and Hazards at the Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR): Infant(l) 80.3 0.08 0.40 Risks and Hazards at the Maximum Impacted 1 12.7 0.08 0.40 Sensitive Receptor (MIR): Child(') i j Risks and Hazards at the Maximum Impacted 2.0 0.08 1 0.40 Sensitive Receptor (MIR): Adult(') BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance 10 1 0.30 Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? Yes No Yeses i Notes: ill Maximum impacted sensitive receptor is a residential building located approximately 22 feet southwest of the project at Oak Grove Ave. 1z) Chronic non -cancer hazard index was estimated by dividing the annual DPM concentration (as PM25 exhaust) by the REL of 5 µg/m3. i Source: HRA Technical Memorandum contained in Appendix B of this IS/MND As shown above in Table 8, prior to the application of mitigation, the project's construction DPM emissions would exceed the BAAQMD's cancer risk and annual PM2.5thresholds of significance at the maximum impacted receptor. Therefore, mitigation is required to reduce impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from project construction. MM AIR-2 would require all off -road construction equipment in excess of 50 horsepower used on - site by the developer or contractors is equipped with engines meeting the EPA Tier IV off -road 54 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-1N(\2803\28030009\ISMND\2803C009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Or Dev ISMND.doa 1 City of Burlingame El 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation rl engine emission standards. This would reduce cancer risks and hazards associated with construction u emissions. Table 9 shows the estimated cancer risks and hazard impacts at the MIR from the project's construction emissions with Tier IV mitigation measures. Table 9: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards during Construction —Tier IV Mitigation LJ F L E C Source Risks and Hazards at the Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR): Infant(') 1 Cancer Risk (risk per million) 3.8 Chronic Non -Cancer Hazard Index(z) <001 Annual PMz.s Concentration 0.02 j Risks and Hazards at the Maximum _ Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR): Child(') 0.7 <0.01 I 0.02 Risks and Hazards at the Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR): Adult lll 1 0.1 i <0.01 0.02 BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance 10 f 1 0.30 --- Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? i No � No No N otes: (1) Maximum impacted sensitive receptor is a residential building located approximately 22 feet southwest of the project at Oak Grove Ave. (2) Chronic non -cancer hazard index was estimated by dividing the annual DPM concentration (as PMz,s exhaust) by the REL of 5 µg/m3• Source: HRA Technical Memorandum contained in Appendix B of this IS/MND i........................ ......_._....,..,---- _----- ............................. ..._....... ....... _... .......... .................. ........................ ,..,......__.,,,,._....._._......._..._..._.---- .._.._....,..,.......__............. _... _........ ......------------------------------------------- ............ .... I As shown above, estimated health risks and hazards would not exceed the BAAQMD's thresholds of significance after application of MM AIR-2. Therefore, with implementation of MM AIR-2, the project's construction emissions would not result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Criterion 2: Project -Specific Operation Toxic Air Pollutants The project proposes to develop a 26-unit live/work building with 2,100 square feet of commercial space and would not have on -site TACs sources during operation. As described in the traffic analysis L prepared for the project, the live/work building with 2,100 square feet of commercial space is expected to generate 123 new daily vehicle trips per day (Appendix H). The proposed project would Fli� primarily generate trips for residents, visitors, employees, and customers traveling to and from the project site. Different from warehouses or distribution centers, the daily travel trips the project would create would be generated by passenger vehicles. Because nearly all passenger vehicles are gasoline-combusted, the project would not generate significant amount of DPM emissions during operation. Therefore, the project would not result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during operation. F11 Criterion 3: Cumulative HRA The BAAQMD recommends assessing the potential cumulative impacts from sources of TACs within F 1,000 feet of a project. As a result, a cumulative HRA was performed that examined the cumulative impacts of the project's construction emissions and sources of TAC emissions within 1,000 feet of the project. Based on proximity to the project site, the MIR was determined to be a residence located at FirstCarbon Solutions 55 \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Climt(PN-1N(\2803\280300D9\ISMND\29030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.d= ii U i Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation Cityof Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project I Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Oak Grove Avenue approximately 22 feet southwest of the project site. Therefore, the cumulative health impacts were estimated at this location. For a project -level analysis, BAAQMD provides three tools for use in screening potential sources of TACs. These tools are: Surface Street Screening Tables. BAAQMD pre -calculated potential cancer risks and PM2.5 concentration increases for each county within their jurisdiction for roadways that meet BAAQMD's "major roadway" criteria of 10,000 vehicles or 1,000 trucks per day. Risks are assessed by roadway volume, roadway direction, and distance to sensitive receptors. City of Burlingame Traffic Engineering Department does not provide traffic counts for the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue, which are located within 1,000 feet of the site boundary. . Freeway Screening Analysis Tool. BAAQMD prepared a Google Earth file that contains pre - estimated cancer risk, hazard index, and PM2.5 concentration increases for highways within the Bay Area. Risks are provided by roadway link and are estimated based on direction and distance to the sensitive receptor. There is no freeway located within 1,000 feet of the site boundary. • Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Screening Tool. BAAQMD prepared a Google Earth file that contains the locations of all stationary sources within the Bay Area that have BAAQMD permits. For each emissions source, BAAQMD provides conservative estimates of cancer risk, non -cancer hazards, and PM2.5 concentrations. There are five existing stationary sources located within 1,000 feet of the site boundary. Descriptions of the sources of existing TAC emissions are included in the HRA contained in Appendix B of this IS/MND. In addition to existing stationary TAC sources mentioned above, a Caltrain/Freight rail line is located 180 feet north and northeast of the site boundary. As described in the HRA contained in Appendix B of this IS/MND, potential health risks to future residents at the proposed project from DPM emissions from the Caltrain/Freight diesel locomotive engines were evaluated for potential health impacts. The cumulative health risk results are summarized in Table 10 during project construction. The methodology used to create the summary presented in Table 10 is described in detail in Appendix B. Table 10: Summary of the Cumulative Health Impacts at the MIR during Construction Distance PM2.5 3 from MIRM Cancer Risk Chronic ! Concentration Source Source Type .... ___.. (feet) _..._..__ ! (per million) ..._................................... _.__...__.__..._..._.,....... HI i (µg/m3) Project Construction (with _ mitigation) Diesel Construction Equipment 22 3.8 <0.01 i 0.02 Existing Stationary Sources (BAAQMD Facility Number)IZI t3� G5709 I Gas Station 164 1 2.5 0.02 ND j 14937 Dry Cleaner 646 1 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 14463 Diesel Generator 1052 2.0 0.02 0.01 14474 i Diesel Generator 730 3.6 <0.01 0.01 ' 5283 ' Dry Cleaner i 1099 10.5 0.03 0.0 56 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publlcatlons\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM N D.doa �J F 1 F c u A 1 A F t F C E C F City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation Table 10 (cont.): Summary of the Cumulative Health Impacts at the MIR during Construction I Distance I I PM2.s 1 from MIRM Cancer Risk ! Chronic Concentration Source Source Type (feet) (per million) ' HI (µg/m3) Caltrain/Freight Railroad ------------- __....._.._..__ Caltrain/Freight(3)� Diesel Locomotive^ s 344 9.1 F <0.01 0.03 _ _.------...._—._......._... _...__�.._...__..___..._.....___....._________..__._..__._ _._------- —....._—_------.___................._......._...---- _...__....__..__... _............ Cumulative Health Risks Cumulative Total with Project Construction �111�31.5 ' 0.08 0.07 BAAQMD's Cumulative Thresholds of Significance ! 100 ! 10 0.8 Threshold Exceedance? j No I No No Notes: (1) The MIR is a residence adjacent to project site, 22 feet southwest of the site along Oak Grove Ave. (2) Cancer risks reflect the current BAAQMD cancer risk guidance for diesel generators and gasoline stations (3) Assumes emissions remain constant with time ND = no data available 'Source: Attachments B and E ofthe HRA Technical Memorandum contained in Appendix B of this IS/MND. .. ..................._...._...................................__......................................................................................_..._........_�......_................_..................._...........___._.......... .......... ................. __............. _............... _.._....... ........i As noted in Table 10, the cumulative impacts from the project construction and existing sources of TACs would be less than the BAAQMD's cumulative thresholds of significance. Thus, the cumulative health risk impacts from project construction would be less than significant. Criterion 4: CO Hotspot As discussed under Impact 3b, the operational CO hotspot impact as a result of project operations would be less than significant. Project as a Receptor The project would locate new sensitive receptors (residents) that could be subject to existing sources of TACs at the project site. However, the California Supreme Court in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District concluded that agencies generally subject to CEQA are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents. Therefore, impacts from existing sources of TAC emissions on sensitive receptors on the project site are not subject to CEQA. For informational purposes, the City has elected to disclose impacts from existing sources of TAC emissions on the future residences. As described in the HRA memo contained in Appendix B of this IS/MND, cumulative health impacts from the existing TAC sources for future project on -site residents would not exceed the BAAQMD's cumulative threshold of significance. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant impact. As stated in the BAAQMD 2017 Air Quality Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard and the ability to detect odors varies considerably among the populations and overall is subjective. FirstCarbon Solutions 57 C\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publlcations\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030DD9 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= City of Burlingame n Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project �I Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The BAAQMD does not have a recommended odor threshold for construction activities. However, BAAQMD recommends screening criteria that are based on distance between types of sources known to generate odor and the receptor. For projects within the screening distances, the BAAQMD has the following threshold for project operations: An odor source with five (5) or more confirmed. complaints per year averaged over three years is considered to have a significant impact on receptors within the screening distance shown in Table 3-3 [of the BAAQMD's guidance]. Two circumstances have the potential to cause odor impacts: 1) A source of odors is proposed to be located near existing or planned sensitive receptors, or 2) A sensitive receptor land use is proposed near an existing or planned source of odor. Project Construction Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during' construction of the project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As such, construction odor impacts would be less than significant. Project Operation The project consists of a new 26-unit live/work building with space for commercial occupancy. The project is not a typical source of objectionable odors; however, the project has a residential component and would have the potential to place sensitive receptors near existing or planned sources of odors. The project site is not located within the vicinity of agricultural operations (dairies, feedlots, etc.), landfills, wastewater treatment plants, refineries, and other types of industrial land uses. Furthermore, there are no land uses within the screening distances shown in Table 3-3 of the BAAQMD's guidance that have received five or more confirmed complaints per year for any 3-year period. As previously discussed, the project is a mixed -use development project and is not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in odor complaints. During operation of the project, odors would primarily consist of passenger vehicles traveling to and from the site. These occurrences would not produce objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant. 58 RrstCarbon Solutions , \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publlcatlons\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM NDA— C C City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 4. Biological Resources Would the project: Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation Less than Significant Potentially Impact with ! Less than Significant I Mitigation Significant i No Impact Incorporated Impact i 1 Impact -------- a) ._---------------------------- ..........--------- ...---------- _.........__ ------------ .--- .........-------- ........... ...................................... Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special I status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) ............................................................................ .............. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ...... .... ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S Fish and Wildlife Service? c) ........ ..... Have a substantial adverse effect on federally i..................... .. L. ...... El El El protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) ............... Interfere substantially with the movement of any .................................................................... ❑ ❑ ® ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances .....................................................................' ............... ❑ ❑ j ® ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? :.........................................+.......................................... ;...................... f) ....................................................... Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, ............................................._......................................................................._ regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ............................................ ............ _ .......................... .................... ,......................................... _ ...................... Environmental Setting This section evaluates potential effects on biological resources that may result from project implementation. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on results from: the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat Portal, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW's) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), CNPS's Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) for the San Mateo quadrangle within San Mateo County, USFWS database searches (as cited in Appendix C), and an assessment of biological resources on -site and in the immediate vicinity completed by FCS. FirstCarbon Solutions \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\29030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 Gl Dr Dav ISMND.d= 59 City of Burlingame i Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Special -status plant and wildlife species typically occur in undeveloped areas. Although it is less likely, it is also possible for them to occur within developed areas. The project is an infill site located in an area that has undergone an extensive history of development built out with institutional, industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The project site contains characteristics of land that has been developed or disturbed, including disturbed soils and large amounts of impervious surfaces. The project site lacks suitable habitat and adequate biological and physical features that are necessary to support any listed, sensitive, or special -status wildlife and plant species. While 23 special -status wildlife species and 22 special -status plant species were considered to occur within the San Mateo quadrangle, it is not likely that these species would use or inhabit the project site because of the absence of suitable habitat. However, potential impacts occurring to special -status species, if they were found on -site, would likely be significant. Furthermore, a review of the USFWS's Critical Habitat designations for Threatened & Endangered Species (USFWS 2018) indicated that the project site is not located within an area designated as critical habitat for any federally listed species. The nearest area of critical habitat designated for California red -legged frog is located approximately 2.5 miles west of the project site. Special -status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Site A plant's species potential to occur on the project site was based on the presence of suitable 71 habitats, soil types, and occurrences recorded by the USFWS, California Native Plant Society (CNPS), or CNDDB in the region, and previous biological documents. As noted above, a total of 22 special- �l status plant species were evaluated for their potential for occur within the project site (Appendix C). It was determined from the absence of suitable habitat because of past development of the site that all 22 special -status plant species are considered unlikely to occur on -site. Because of the highly disturbed nature of the project site and overall lack of suitable habitat, no special -status plant species have the potential to occur within the project site; therefore, no special -status plant species would be impacted by project construction. Special -status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Site Based upon the types of habitat that each special -status wildlife species occupies, and previous biological documents, each wildlife species was evaluated for its potential to occur within the project site. Twenty-three special -status wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within — the project site (Appendix C). Because of the highly urbanized nature of the project site and J previous development efforts coupled with an overall lack of suitable habitat, no special -status wildlife species have the potential to occur within the project site. However, the project site and its j� 60 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publlcatlons\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMNDAd E City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation n adjacent areas contain buildings, ornamental trees and shrubs, and a large stand of eucalyptus trees u that may provide potential habitat for special -status bird and bat species such as the white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), as well as non -special -status migratory raptors and passerine bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META). Construction activities could disturb nesting and breeding birds and bats in buildings, trees, and shrubs within and around the construction site. Potential impacts on special -status and migratory birds and bats that could result from the construction and operation of the project include the destruction of eggs or occupied nests/roosts, mortality of young, and the abandonment of nests/roosts with eggs or young birds or bats prior to fledging. If these species were found to be present, impacts to these species would be significant. MM BIO-1 would reduce impacts to C migratory and nesting raptors protected under the MBTA to a less than significant level. In addition, MM BIO-2 would reduce impacts to special -status bat species to a less than significant level. MM BIO-1 Migratory Birds and Nesting Raptors 1. If construction or tree removal is proposed during the breeding/nesting season for local avian species (typically March 1 through August 31), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds within and in the vicinity of (no less U than 250 feet outside the project boundaries, where possible) the project site Lprior shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. One survey will be conducted 30 days to tree removal or construction activities. If no active nests are found, tree removal or construction activities may proceed. Fand 2. If an active nest is located during pre -construction surveys, the United States Fish Wildlife Service and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest. Furthermore, construction activities shall be restricted to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned or the biologist deems disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones or alteration of the construction schedule. MM 13I0-2 Special -status Bat Species 1. To reduce construction related impacts to special -status bat species, a bat survey shall be conducted between March 1 to July 31 by a qualified wildlife biologist within the year of proposed construction start and prior to ground disturbance. If no bat roosts are detected, then no further action is required. If a colony of bats is found roosting on -site, then the following mitigation will be implemented to reduce the potential disturbance: 2. If a female or maternity colony of bats are found on the project site, a wildlife biologist through coordination with CDFW shall determine what physical and Etimed buffer zones shall be employed to ensure the continued success of the colony. Such buffer zones may include a construction -free barrier of 200 feet P FirstCarbon Solutions 61 F� U \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Cllent(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\280300D9 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dw ISM ND.doa !I City of Burlingame n Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration from the roost and/or the timing of the construction activities outside the maternity roost season (after July 31 and before March 1). b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. The project site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. As noted above, the project site is an infill site within urbanized context of the City of Burlingame and contains impervious surfaces and disturbed soils. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect any riparian habitat; therefore, there would be no impacts from project construction. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No impact. The project site was assessed for the presence or absence of waters of the U.S. or State through a query of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory and a review of aerial photography; but no formal jurisdictional delineation of wetlands or other waters of the U.S. was conducted. The project site does not contain jurisdictional drainages, wetlands, riparian vegetation, or evidence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM); therefore, no United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or CDFW jurisdictional areas are located on -site. Therefore, the project would not remove, fill or hydrologically interrupt federally protect wetlands. No impacts would result from project construction. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? Less than significant impact. The project would not interfere with the movement of migratory fish, migratory wildlife corridors, or the use of wildlife nursery sites. The project site is located in an established residential and commercial neighborhood with multiple barriers to wildlife migration. The closest potential wildlife movement corridor is Easton Creek, located approximately 1.2 miles j northwest of the project site, which would not be affected by the project given the distance from the �J site and intervening development. As such, the impact on migratory fish and wildlife would be less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than significant impact. The City of Burlingame's Municipal Code (Title 11, Chapter 11.04 Street Trees and 11.06 Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection) requires a permit for removal, pruning, or damage to any street tree or protected tree. Street trees are defined as any woody plant with a single stem and commonly achieving ten feet or more in height. Protected trees are defined as a) any tree 62 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= 0 a City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation C with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured at a height 54 inches above natural grade; b) a tree or stand of trees so designated by the city council; or c) a stand of trees in which the Parks and Recreation director has determined each tree is dependent on the others for survival. F 11 C P C I I P L LF P 11 The project site includes four existing street trees (two on California Drive and two Oak Grove Avenue) located in planter strips between the street and sidewalk, one existing tree in the right-of- way along Oak Grove Avenue (between the sidewalk and property line), and one existing tree on private property. The proposed project includes removing and replacing the two existing street trees on California Drive and one existing tree on Oak Grove Avenue and removing the existing tree in the right-of-way along Oak Grove Avenue and one private property tree. Each of the three street trees that will be removed and replaced will require a Tree Work Permit from the Parks Division prior to removal. The remaining street trees shall be subject to tree protection measures prior to construction in accordance with Municipal Code 11.06.050, which requires protected trees to be protected by a fence during construction. Municipal Code 11.06.050 further prohibits the storage of chemicals or other construction materials within the drip line of protected trees. The Municipal Code Section 11.06 Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection includes measures and conditions that protect trees that are to remain, and requirements for replacement of trees that are removed. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that impacts to street trees and others affected by the project would be less than significant. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No impact. No Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in any conflicts with adopted plans. FirstCarbon Solutions 63 \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publiatlons\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMNMI- City of Burlingame FI Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration J than 4 'ess Significant J Potentially j Impact with Less than Significant ! Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact p Incorporated .. ..__ Impact Impact ..p...... . ... 5. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project: ................. ------------------------------------------- .............. .. . a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? ......_............._..................................................... .............................................................. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ® ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ® ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and ............................._.............................._.....................................-.........._........._.........._...............................__.------------------------------------- e) Listed or eligible for listing in the California that is: .-..--- ...................-.....................__..-._.......................... ❑ ❑ i .._............................... ..._.... .. ® ❑ Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in .-Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or n f) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its ..... ....... ❑ ❑ ® El discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources LJ Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code �) Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. r� Environmental Setting This section describes the existing cultural resources setting and potential effects from project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Northwest Information Center (NWIC), National Register of Historic Places (NR), California Register of Historic Resources (CR), California Historical Landmarks list, California Points of Historical Interest list, California State Historic Resources Inventory, the University of California Museum of Paleontology Database (UCMP), and a pedestrian survey of the site conducted by FCS. The NWIC 64 FirstCarbon Solutions \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Cllent(PN-JN)\2SD3\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Or Dev ISMNDA— I'� E I E Ci I I I I E p City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation records search results, NAHC and Tribal correspondence, paleontological report, and pedestrian survey photographs are provided in Appendix D. Northwest Information Center In order to determine the presence or absence of cultural and historical resources within the proposed project area, a records search and literature review were conducted for the project site and a 0.50-mile radius surrounding it on December 19, 2017 at the NWIC, located at Sonoma State University. The purpose of this review was to access existing cultural resource survey reports, archaeological site records, and historic maps and evaluate whether any previously documented prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, cultural landscapes, or other resources exist within or near the project area. Results from the NWIC indicate that 37 resources are on file within a 0.5-mile radius of the project area. There are no resources located on the project site. In addition, 63 area -specific survey reports are on file with the NWIC for the 0.5-mile search radius. None of the reports addresses the project area directly, indicating the site has not previously been surveyed for cultural resources; however, the two Craftsman bungalows located on the parcel at 625 California Drive were evaluated for potential historic significance by Carey and Co. Architecture in 2008. The report describes the buildings as almost identical in design, and both date from 1914. Wood shingles clad both buildings, which also have wide eave overhangs, knee brackets, thin exposed rafter tails, and wood -sash windows. The report states that the buildings are good examples of bungalows with a high level of integrity in Burlingame; however, they do not appear to be sufficiently significant examples of this architectural style to be eligible for listing in the CR or NR. Additionally, they do not appear to be associated with a significant event or person in local, state, or national history. As such, the report concludes the bungalows should not be considered potential historic resources under CEQA. A records search map, identifying the project boundaries and 0.5-mile search radius along with relevant records search results may be found in Appendix D-1. Native American Heritage Commission and Tribal Outreach On January 7, 2018, FCS sent a letter to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File within the project area. A response from the NAHC was received on January 23, 2018 indicating that the Sacred Lands File search failed to indicate the presence of known Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) in the immediate project area. The NAHC included a list of six local tribal representatives available for consultation. To ensure that all Native American knowledge and potential prehistoric concerns about the project are addressed, a letter containing project information and requesting any additional information was sent to each tribal representative on March 7, 2018. No responses have been received to date. NAHC and Tribal correspondence may be found in Appendix D-2. Site Visit and Pedestrian Cultural Resources Survey On February 3, 2018, FCS Staff visited the project site located at 619-625 California Drive. Currently, the parcel at 619 California Drive is vacant but has been paved over with concrete. The parcel at 621 California Drive has an automobile repair facility, and the parcel at 625 California Drive has two FirstCarbon Solutions 65 \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\CIIMt(PN-JN)\2803\280300D9\ISMND\29030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Or Dev ISM ND.d= City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration D Craftsman bungalows. All three parcels are completely developed or otherwise hardscaped and no native undisturbed soils were visible within the project area. For this reason, an archaeological survey of the property was not possible. No historic or prehistoric cultural resources were found within the project site. Survey photographs may be found in Appendix D-3. University of California Museum of Paleontology Database Search On January 19, 2018, FCS Consulting paleontologist Dr. Ken Finger performed a records search for the project site on the UCMP database. The project site is located in Township 4S, Range 4W, San Mateo quadrangle (2015 USGS 7.5-series topographic map). The surface of the entire site has been disturbed by the emplacement of a parking lot between adjacent structures. According to the part of geologic map of Brabb et al. (1998), the surface of the area of the project site consists solely of Holocene basin deposits (Qhb), which are too young to be fossiliferous. That deposit overlies the Pleistocene alluvium (Qpaf) that is also surface -mapped within the 0.5-mile search perimeter. The UCMP database search focused on Pleistocene vertebrates from San Mateo County. The results are 13 localities that yielded 45 specimens including long -horned bison (Bison latifrons),Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbj), Yesterday's camel (Camelops hesternus), common murre (Urfa aalge), Harlan's ground sloth (Glossotherium harlani), horse (Equus), and sea otter (Enhydra). None of the 13 paleontological localities, however, are within or near the 0.5-mile search radius, and the one closest to the project site is 4 miles to the northwest. Thus, the Burlingame site appears to have a low potential but high sensitivity for significant paleontological resources. Environmental Evaluation Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The results of the NWIC records search show that 37 cultural resources lie within 0.5 mile of the project site. All of these resources are historic buildings or structures, none of which are located within the project area itself. Additionally, the two bungalows built in 1914 in the western portion of the project area were evaluated in 2008 and were found not to meet a level of historic significance that would make them eligible for the CR or NR. As such, they should not be considered potential historic resources under CEQA. While no historic resources were discovered in the records searches or site visit, subsurface construction activities always have the potential to damage or destroy previously undiscovered historic resources. Historic resources can include wood, stone, foundations, and other structural remains; debris -filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics, and other refuse. Accordingly, implementation of MM CUL-1 is required to reduce potential impacts to historic resources that may be discovered during project construction. With the incorporation of mitigation, impacts associated with historic resources would be less than significant. 66 FirstCarbon Solutions \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.dm J I (� City of Burlingame J 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation n MM CUL-1 In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during u subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and workers should avoid altering the materials until an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology has evaluated the resource. The Applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The resource shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by the qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive report complete with methods, results, and recommendations, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered a resources. The report shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame, the Northwest Information Center, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The results of the NWIC records search show that 37 cultural resources lie within 0.5 mile of the project site. Of these resources, none are associated with prehistoric archaeological resources. Additionally, the location and highly disturbed/developed nature of the project site makes the likelihood of encountering intact prehistoric resources low. Nonetheless, development activities have the potential to encounter undiscovered archaeological resources. Such resources could consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell a artifacts or features, including hearths and structural elements. Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM CUL-1 would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Dr. Finger's report concluded that the project site consists solely of Holocene basin deposits (Qhb), which are too young to be fossiliferous. The UCMP records search for Pleistocene vertebrates from San Mateo County identified 13 localities that yielded 45 specimens; however, none are within or near the 0.5-mile search radius. Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to have an adverse effect on paleontological resources is considered low. Although not anticipated, sub -surface construction activities associated with the proposed project, such as grading and trenching, could result in a significant impact to paleontological resources if encountered. Paleontological resources may include but are not limited to fossils from mammoths, FirstCarbon Solutions 67 \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publlcations\Client (PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.doa lI J City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration saber-toothed cats, rodents, reptiles, and birds. Accordingly, implementation of MM CUL-2 would be required to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources that may be discovered during project construction. With the incorporation of mitigation, impacts associated with paleontological resources would be less than significant. MM CUL-2 In the event that fossils or fossil -bearing deposits are discovered during construction activities, excavations within a 100-foot radius of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The project contractor shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction activities are allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the Applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the discovery. The plan shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame for review and approval prior to implementation, and the Applicant shall adhere to the recommendations in the plan. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. No human remains or cemeteries are known to exist within or near the project area. However, there is always the possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project, such as trenching and grading, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. In the unlikely event human remains are discovered, implementation of MM CUL-3 would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. MM CUL-3 In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. If during the course of project development there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken: 1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the 68 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-JN(\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 eurlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa L City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation n NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely LI descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation CIwork within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. 1-7 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the a recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: • The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. • The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures Facceptable to the landowner. Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American Remains: When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American Remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The applicant may develop a ,7 IL_,J plan for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American Burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape J that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: e) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or LJ Less than significant impact. A review of the CR, local registers of historical resources, a records search conducted at the NWIC, and an NAHC sacred lands file search failed to identify any listed TCRs E that may be adversely affected by the proposed project. As such, no known eligible or potentially eligible TCRs will adversely affected by the proposed project. F FirstCarbon Solutions 69 u \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d— Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration f) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Less than significant impact. FCS conducted tribal outreach with the five tribal representatives identified by the NAHC. As of this date, none of the tribes has responded or otherwise identified any tribal cultural resources associated with the property, and the City has not identified any tribal cultural resources in its capacity as Lead Agency As such, no TCRs would be adversely affected by the proposed project. 70 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publlcatlons\Client (PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Issues Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation Less than I Significant i Potentially j Impact with Less than Significant i Mitigation Significant No Impact 1 Incorporated Impact I Impact 6. Geology and Soils Would the project: _.. ................................ ..................... ......... ................................ a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ........._....a ® ..... ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ............ ... ...... ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ .................................-_..-..............................................................................................;._.......................................;.......................................... iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including j ❑ ® ...................................................-................. El ❑ ................... .liquefaction? ................................................................................... . iv) Landslides? ..._........................ ❑ ----- ❑ --------- .... ❑ .................. b) ....... ........................................................................... ............................. ......................_........................:.............................-----..., Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ topsoil? j c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ® ❑ ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ...................................... ................................................... d .. Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table ❑ ❑ ® ..... ❑ 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), .......................................................I... creating substantial risks to life or property? ............................................................. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ❑ ❑ use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Environmental Setting The project site located in an area with Holocene -age medium -grained alluvium consisting of unconsolidated to moderately consolidated, moderately sorted sand and silty to clayey sand, which lies within the eastern portion of the San Mateo County. In addition, the City of Burlingame is located within the proximity of two major active earthquake faults. The San Andreas Fault runs south to north through Burlingame in the hills on the west side of the City, and the Hayward fault is located 15 miles to east of the project site (Burlingame General Plan 1975). There is a 72 percent probability that a Richter magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will occur in the San Francisco Bay FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Pu611ations\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.doa 71 i `l City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration LJ Area before 2045 (Romig Engineers 2017). According to the Seismic Element of the Burlingame General Plan, four groups of soils exist in Burlingame: the Baylands, which has extensive fill over historic marshlands; Alluvial Plains, with gravel, silt, sand, and clay deposits; the Foothill Band, which consists of sandstone, siltstone, a ravine fill of gravel, silt and clay; and the Western Hills, which generally consists of a variety of Franciscan rocks, frequently found in softer clay deposits. The groundwater table is at the site is projected to be as high as approximately 6 feet below grade, although the level could change seasonally (Romig Engineers 2017). The Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc. (2017), which is provided in Appendix E, supports the analysis in this section. Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. I� Less than significant impact. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is to restrict construction of structures intended for human occupancy along traces of active faults. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or on, or immediately adjacent to, an active or potentially active fault (California Department of Conservation 2015). The nearest faults to the project site most likely to produce large earthquakes include the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. San Andreas fault is located approximately 2.7 southwest of the site. San Gregorio fault is located approximately 9.1 miles southwest of the site. The Hayward and Calveras faults are located approximately 16 and 24 miles east of the site, respectively. The project site is likely to experience severe ground shaking during moderate to large earthquakes. However, the project would be required to comply with the California Building Code as well as the City's Building Code (Title 18). Adhering to the California Building Code and the City's Building Code would render impacts associated with fault rupture hazards less than significant. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. All of California, including the project site, is subject to earthquake risks. The project site area is situated within the San Francisco Bay Area, a region characterized by a number of active faults and fault zones, and moderate to high `J seismic activity. As previously mentioned, the likelihood of a strong earthquake in the next 30 years is high at this location. The San Andreas and Hayward fault zones could likely cause very strong to r violent severe seismic ground shaking at the project site. The proposed project would be expected u to experience a moderate to large earthquakes several times during its design life. Geotechnical and I 72 FirstCarbon Solutions \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-JN)U803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa P a City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation (� seismic design criteria must conform to engineering recommendations in accordance with the u seismic requirements of Zone 4 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and California Building Code (Title 24) additions. Burlingame's Municipal Code, updated in 2016, provides regulation to ensure performance of a building in earthquake scenarios. The project would be required to comply with all applicable building code regulations and standards to address potential geologic impacts associated with proposed redevelopment of the site including ground shaking. Furthermore, MM GEO-1 CIrequires the project applicant to retain a qualified geotechnical consulting firm to review final engineering plans and monitor during the earthwork and foundation phases of construction. The aprovisions State of California requires that buildings and structures be designed with the seismic design presented in the 2016 California Building Code and in ASCE 7-10, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures." Fil E C I F III E r MM GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit and during the foundation phases of construction, the project applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, by retaining a qualified geotechnical consulting firm. Subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations of borings during the Geotechnical Investigation. The geotechnical firm retained by the project applicant shall review final engineer plans as well as observe and test during the earthwork and foundation phases of construction. This would ensure recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation are properly incorporated into the project plan and development. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The Burlingame General Plan recognizes that liquefaction has been responsible for ground failures during nearly all of California's major earthquakes. Based on a review of the interactive USGS Susceptibility Map of the San Francisco Bay Area, the subject site is located within an area identified as having a moderate susceptibility to liquefaction. The Geotechnical Investigation of the project site indicates that a total settlement of 0.6 to 1.1 inches is estimated to occur within the sand strata at the site, due to severe ground shaking caused by a major earthquake. MM GEO-2 would ensure that the project's foundations are on appropriate soils or fills to minimize the structure's risk of a seismic -related ground failure. MM GEO-3 and MM GEO-4 require that the foundation can withstand lateral loads and post -construction settlement so the project building can withstand the possibility of liquefaction. Adherence to these mitigation measures, coupled with adherence to the UBC and California Building Code, as stated previously, would render the impacts from liquefaction less than significant. MM GEO-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project's plans shall reflect foundations that extend deep enough to penetrate more stable soils. The project applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, by ensuring the building be supported on conventional spread footing foundation system bearing on stiff native soils or properly compacted structural fill. All continuous footings shall have a width of at least 15 inches and shall extend at least 30 inches below exterior grade or at least 24 inches below the bottom of concrete FirstCarbon Solutions 73 \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publicatlons\Client(PN-JN)\2803\280300D9\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Der ISMND.d= u Ll Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration %, slabs -on -grade, whichever is deeper. Footings located adjacent to utility lines shall bear below a 1:1 plane extending up from the bottom edge of the utility trench. Continuous foundations shall be designed with sufficient depth and reinforcing to tolerate the estimated differential settlement. The geotechnical consulting firm retained by the applicant shall observe all footing excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel to confirm that suitable material has been exposed and properly cleaned. If soft or loose soil is encountered in the foundation excavations, the geotechnical consulting firm may require overexcavation and/or compactive effort or a deeper footing depth below the reinforcing steel is placed. Alternative to the spread footing foundation described above, the building may be supported on a reinforced concrete mat foundation bearing on a properly prepared and compacted soil subgrade. The mat foundation shall have a thickened perimeter edge that extends at least eight inches into the soil subgrade below the bottom of the mat or at least four inches below the base of the capillary break rock section. This should improve edge stiffness, reduce the potential for map slab dampness, and increase resistance to lateral loads imposed on the mat. The mat foundation shall be reinforced to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. It shall be designed with sufficient depth and reinforcing to be able to tolerate the estimated differential settlements. Prior to mat construction, the subgrade shall be proof -rolled to provide a smooth firm surface for mat support. Where dampness of the mat would be undesirable, a high quality membrane vapor barrier shall be installed. MM GEO-3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the structural engineer shall consult with the membrane manufacturer for the coefficient of friction to be assumed for design. Lateral loads may be resisted by base friction between the vapor barrier or damp proofing membrane shown below the mat and the supporting subgrade and by passive soil pressure acting against the sides of the mat foundations. Lateral resistance may be provided by passive soil pressure acting against the sides of foundations cast neat in footing excavations or backfilled with compacted structural fill. The upper foot of passive soil shall not be neglected where soil adjacent to the footing or mat will be landscaped or subject to softening from rainfall and/or surface runoff. MM GEO-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the building foundations shall be designed as recommended by the Geotechnical Investigation. The 30-year post -construction differential settlement due to static loads is not expected to exceed 1 inch across the proposed building. Less differential movement would be expected across a structural mat foundation. Additional differential settlement may occur as a result of liquefaction and dynamic densification caused by severe ground shaking during a major earthquake. 74 RrstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Cl lent(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burl inga me 619-625 CA Or Dev ISMNDA— E a City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation n iv) Landslides? U No impact. According to the City of Burlingame's General Plan, soils within the City are reasonably stable under seismic conditions. In addition, the Geotechnical Investigation identifies that the project site and the surrounding area "very gently" sloped towards the San Francisco Bay. The surface elevation at the site is approximately 23 feet above sea level. The topography of the site is relatively flat and not adjacent to a hillside and so would not be susceptible to landslides. Thus, no impact would occur. ab) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. Site grading, excavation, and construction have the potential to result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. As detailed below in Impact 2.9a), runoff from the project site during grading would be evaluated for its potential to cause erosion (Municipal Code Section 18.20.060). Additionally, the city engineer or building official would inspect the project site after rough grading to ensure compliance with the grading permit (Municipal Code Section 18.20.080). Further, because development of the proposed project would remove or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, the project is required to meet Provisions C.3 and C.6 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), Order No. RI-2009-0074 and Order No.112-2011-0083, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CAS612008. Adherence to these standard requirements detailed in MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2 would minimize the potential for erosion aand sedimentation during construction activities. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? I Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The Geotechnical Investigation determined �I that there is a medium dense sand strata that are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic densification. Dynamic densification occurs during moderate and large earthquakes when soft or loose, r, natural or fill soils densify and settle, often unevenly across a site. A State of California liquefaction LJ hazard zone had not been established yet for this site area. Project -specific recommendations to a minimize the potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading and are included in MM GEO-1, MM GEO- 2, MM GEO-3, and MM GEO-4 above. With the implementation of these mitigation measures coupled with adherence to the UBC and the California Building Code, the impacts of related to unstable soils awould be rendered less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), acreating substantial risks to life or property? Less than significant impact. Soils that are considered expansive contain significant amounts of clay a materials. The Geotechnical Investigation indicated that the surface and near surface soils at the site have generally low plasticity (Plasticity Index of eight) and a low potential for expansion. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. FirstCarbon Solutions 75 F\\10.200.1.5\adet\Publiwtlons\Cllent (PN-JN(\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Or DeV ISMND.dm City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? J No impact. Sewer and wastewater disposal services would be provided by the City of Burlingame; there are no septic or alternative wastewater systems proposed as part of the project. Therefore, no impact would occur. 76 FirstCarbon Solutions \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publicatlons\Client(PN-)N)\2803\2B030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.doa L I A C C E F F', City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation ...... Less than ......... ........... l Significant j 1 Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental issues _.......................................... . ............... .......... ... _ t........ Impact ............ Incorporated .... ................. Impact l ......._..... _ ...._ Impact j ......._.. ., 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: _ ............................. _................................. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ...................................... ❑ ............... ........... .................................... ❑ ......._.......,....._. ® _..................... ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? j ...........................................................I.........._................. ......................,_.................................._!._. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ......... ......... ........ ........, -------.-._..... Environmental Setting Climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth that is measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historical records of temperature changes occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs). The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. There have been significant legislative and regulatory activities that directly and indirectly affect climate change and GHGs in California. The primary climate change legislation in California is Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, focusing on reducing GHG emissions in California. This analysis is restricted to GHGs identified by AB 32, which include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. BAAQMD's project -level significance threshold for operational greenhouse gas generation was deemed appropriate to use when determining the project's potential greenhouse gas impacts. The thresholds suggested by BAAQMD for project -level operational greenhouse gas generation are as follows: a • Compliance with a qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, or • 1,100 MT CO2e/year, or • 4.6 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per service population (employees plus residents). FBAAQMD's Air Quality Guidelines state that if annual emissions of GHG exceed the thresholds, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable significant impact to global climate change. (- j Therefore, if the project is consistent with any one of the thresholds identified above, then the L project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to global climate change. F 0 FirstCarbon Solutions 77 \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publintions\Cllmt(PN-1N)\2903\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= I L� City of Burlingame — Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than significant impact. Both project construction and operations have the potential to generate GHG emissions. The project would generate GHG emissions during temporary (short-term) construction activities such as site grading, construction equipment engines, on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the project site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles used by the construction workers. On -site construction activities would vary depending on the type and level of construction activity. Long-term, operational GHG emissions would result from project -generated vehicular traffic, on -site combustion of natural gas, operation of any landscaping equipment, off -site generation of electrical power over the life of the project, the energy required to convey water to and wastewater from the project site, the emissions associated with the hauling and disposal of solid waste from the project site, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. The estimated annual operational emissions were compared with the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year per year to determine significance for this criterion. Construction The project would emit greenhouse gas emissions during construction from the off -road equipment, worker vehicles, and any hauling that may occur. BAAQMD does not presently provide a construction -related greenhouse gas generation threshold, but recommends that construction - generated GHGs be quantified and disclosed. BAAQMD also recommends that lead agencies (in this case, the City of Burlingame) make a determination of the level of significance of construction - generated greenhouse gas emissions in relation to meeting AB 32 greenhouse gas reduction goals. Total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined and are presented in Table 11. As shown in Table 11, construction of the project is estimated to generate approximately 211 MT CO2e over the entire project construction duration (2Q19-2020). In order to account for the construction emissions, the total emissions generated during construction were amortized based on the life of the development (mixed-use-30 years) and added to the operational emissions to determine the total emissions of the project. These total project emissions were compared to the BAAQMD significance threshold standard. Table 11: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction Phase MT CO2e/year Demolition Site Preparation 24.0 78 FirstCarbon Solutions \\30.200.1.5\ade \Publications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030D09\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= n u C F l� u L I City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation Table 11(cont.): Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions r_._...._.._.._._--- __.___.._,.__....__.,,.,____,,,,.,..,,_,.,,_,.------.,_.___.._..._ Construction Phase .........__..____._..__.._..____............__.._.....___,_...,_.___....____.. MT CO2e/year . --- .........--- ._---------- _...._....._........._._....._._......._.___.._. Grading --- _...._................_.._..,....,...,..._...........___.....__.._._._...................._.__.... 3.7 Building Construction 172.2 Paving 1.6 v� Architectural Coating _ 2.0 Total Construction Emissions 210.8 Amortized over 30 years 7.0 Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Totals calculated using unrounded numbers. Source: CalEEMod and FirstCarbon Solutions (see Appendix A) ! Operation jOperational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the project. Sources for operational �J emissions include: n . Motor Vehicles: These emissions refer to GHG emissions contained in the exhaust from the LI cars and trucks that would travel to and from the project site. . Natural Gas: These emissions refer to the greenhouse gas emissions that occur when natural F11 gas is burned on the project site. Natural gas uses could include heating water, space heating, dryers, stoves, or other uses. n I . Indirect Electricity: These emissions refer to those generated by off -site power plants to UUU supply electricity required for the project. f-1 . Water Transport: These emissions refer to those generated by the electricity required to Ltransport and treat the water to be used on the project site. rl • Waste: These emissions refer to the greenhouse gas emissions produced by decomposing Uwaste generated by the project. F I 11 Operational greenhouse gas emissions by source are shown in Table 12. Table 12: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2020) Mobile (Vehicles) _150.6 FirstCarbon Solutions \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= 79 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 12 (cont.): Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2020) Emission Source Project Total MT CO2e per year Waste 7.1 Water 5.7 i Total Project Operational Emissions :..................................................................... 213.2 __................................................... _............... _.................... I Annualized Construction Emissions ................ _ 7.0 Total Project Emissions 220.2 .......................................................................-.... .................................................................. 1..............___....._.._.......................... BAAQMD Threshold ± .... 1,100 Does project exceed threshold? — I� No Notes: MT COze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Unrounded results used to calculate totals. 1 Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix A) As shown in Table 12, the project's long-term operational emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD's threshold of significance. Therefore, the project's GHG emissions would be less than significant. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than significant impact. in 2009, the City of Burlingame prepared a Climate Action Plan to address the City's impacts to climate change (Burlingame 2009). The Climate Action Plan provides methods and guidance to reduce GHG emissions in the City. The program and policy recommendations contained in the Climate Action Plan were reviewed to determine if development of the project would conflict with any of the recommendations. As discussed below, implementation of the project would not conflict with the Climate Action Plan. The project would create a new 26-unit live/work building with space for commercial occupancy, and is consistent with the Climate Action Plan recommendation to encourage development that is mixed - use, infill, and higher density. Furthermore, the project includes bicycle parking for both residents and visitors. A bicycle rack for visitors will be located near the building entrance lobby and resident bicycle storage for 24 bicycles will be provided in the building's secure parking garage. By including ample bicycle parking, the project would provide a safe and convenient option for bicycle transportation in the area. In addition, the project proposes improvements to the sidewalks fronting the project site, with a sidewalk 9 feet wide along California Drive and a sidewalk 5 feet wide along Oak Grove Avenue. Improvements to the sidewalks surrounding the project site will ensure there are safe walkways for pedestrians, which further promotes the goals and recommendations provided in the Climate Action Plan. Future residents, employees, and visitors would have access to public transportation to connect to destinations throughout the greater Bay Area. An existing bus stop 80 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Pu611W tlons\Cllent(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.doa R A E I u n 11 P r L City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation bench along California Drive would remain in front of the project building for use. The project site is also located less than 0.5 mile from Burlingame Station, the closest train station. As Burlingame is currently updating its Climate Action Plan as part of the City's General Plan Update, program and policy recommendations from the August 2017 public review draft have been reviewed and assessed for applicability to the project (Burlingame 2017). Chapter II of the Plan contains goals adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As discussed below, the project promotes several goals being considered as part of the City's General Plan Update. Implementation of the project supports the City's goal to promote higher -density infill development with a mix of uses on underutilized parcels, particularly near transit stations and stops. The project consists of the construction of a new 26-unit live/work building with 2,100 square feet of commercial retail space on approximately 0.45 acre. The project site currently consists of a vacant lot, an automobile repair facility, and two residential dwelling units. Compared with the current land use, the project will promote higher -density development with mixed residential and commercial uses. In addition, the project site is located less than 0.5 mile from Burlingame Station and several bus stops, which will provide future residents, employees, and visitors with easy access to sustainable transportation options. Another goal is to "encourage throughout Downtown a diverse mix of commercial, office, and residential uses that support both daytime and evening activity, take advantage of easy transit access, and distinguish Burlingame from other downtowns along the Peninsula." According to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, the project is located in the North California Drive Commercial District, which allows live/work, retail, business services, hotel and office uses (above the first floor)(Burlingame 2010). The proposed live/work development would be consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and district zoning regulations. The project will also meet the requirements of the 2016 California Building Code, including all of the latest regulatory standards for energy efficiency, sustainable development, and the enhancement of environmental quality. For example, as part of the 2016 California Green Building Code Checklist for Nonresidential Buildings, the project provides both short- and long-term bicycle parking for residents and visitors. In operation, the project also aims to meet all applicable Green Building Measures outlined in the checklists. The project is consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan and General Plan Update, and would not conflict with the provisions of AB 32, the applicable air quality plan, or any other state or regional plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None. FirstCarbon Solutions 81 \\30.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Cllent(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM NDA— ` City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: Less than 1 Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated I Impact Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ® ❑ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) .................................................. .. ............................................... Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ......... ............................... ❑ ❑ .................... . ® ❑ or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? j .............................. d) ---.............---- ......................_......._...........__...._.........._._..._........_........................_................._.._..................................:.. Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ............... -----------.--_ ® ........... ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) ............................. ...... -------------- For a project located within an airport land use ❑ -- ❑ --------- ❑ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ........................._............................._.._......_........_.................._...... f) Fora project within the vicinity of a private -------------............. airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) ................................................ .. Impair implementation of or physically interfere ......... El .............. ElEl with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ....._......................... . ........................ h) ........................... ......................................_..__................................................................................................ Expose people or structures to a significant risk ...:....................... ❑ ....... .......................................................... ❑ ❑ .................. _.........__...: of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are 82 FirstCarbon Solutions %%10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-JN(\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030D09 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation u Ll Environmental Setting This section contains a description of the setting regarding hazardous materials handled by the j� project. Hazardous materials are defined by the California Code of Regulations as substances with certain physical properties that could pose a substantial present or future hazard to human health or the environment when improperly handled, disposed, or otherwise managed. Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four categories, based on their properties: . Toxic —causes human health effects. • Ignitable —has the ability to burn. • Corrosive —causes severe burns or damage to materials. • Reactive —causes explosions or generates toxic gases. CThe criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous. If improperly handled, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. The project site is currently not listed on any federal, State, regional or local hazardous materials databases. The use, handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials shall comply with all applicable requirements of Government Code Section 65850.2 California Code of Regulation, Title 23, Chapter 15, Articles I through IV, and the Uniform Fire Code. Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code establishes minimum statewide standards for Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs). HMBPs contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, a and health risks of hazardous materials and/or waste. Each business shall prepare a HMBP if that business uses, handles, or stores a hazardous material and/or waste or an extremely hazardous material in quantities greater than or equal to the following: • 55 gallons for a liquid • 500 pounds of a solid • 200 cubic feet for any compressed gas • Threshold planning quantities of an extremely hazardous substance The San Mateo County Health System Environmental Health Division provides services to ensure a safe and healthy environment in San Mateo County through education, monitoring, and enforcement of regulatory programs and services for the community. Services include restaurant and housing inspection, household hazardous waste and medical waste disposal, water protection and water quality monitoring, pollution prevention, and other regulatory activities and services. L' LJI Environmental Evaluation The following discussion is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by AEI j—j Consultants for the parcel designated APN 029-131-160 in August 2015 and a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by Pangea Environmental Services, Inc. for the parcel designated APN 029-131-150, both of which are attached as Appendix F. FirstCarbon Solutions 83 \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publlwtlons\Climt(PN-JN)\2803\28030D09\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= City of Burlingame �I Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than significant impact. The proposed project consists of a live/work building with 26 dwelling units and approximately 2,100 square feet of commercial uses along California Drive, which could include retail activities, personal services, business services, offices (except medical and real estate), financial services, food services, and laundromats. Future residents and commercial activities would likely store and use small quantities of household hazardous chemicals or wastes (e.g., cleaning products, ammonia, paints, and oils) which would not be considered significant. The proposed development would not involve the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of reportable quantities of hazardous materials. Because safe disposal of household hazardous waste collection events and the quantities of hazardous materials that would be used on -site are considered de minimis, impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be considered less than significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than significant impact. As a proposed live/work development, generally the project would not be expected to pose a risk of accidental release of hazardous materials or wastes, as those materials would not be used or stored on -site in significant quantities. However, the existing structures, which would be demolished as part of the project, were constructed in 1916 and may contain lead -based paint and/or asbestos. Lead -based paint and/or asbestos may become airborne during the demolition process, posing a health risk to the nearest residents and construction workers. Lead -based Paint and Asbestos The proposed project would be required to remove and dispose of all asbestos-, lead-, and PCB - containing materials according to the state Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations and comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines for worker safety during removal. In addition, BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 would require implementation of preventative measure during demolition and removal of all asbestos -containing materials to prevent emissions of asbestos into the air. Compliance with applicable rules and regulations would result in a less than significant impact from the proposed project related to accidental release of hazards into the environment and exposure of construction workers. Site Conditions APN 029-131-160, is a vacant parking lot. The property consisted of undeveloped/unimproved land (circa 1913-1956); then was used as a parking lot/vehicle storage yard (circa 1965—present). For a time, the southern portion of the lot was leased to a towing company that stored towed vehicles, while the northern portion was used by an adjacent automotive repair garage for vehicle storage. The Phase I ESA conducted on this parcel did not identify any Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs), or Historical Recognized Bq FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.dm IL� City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Environmental Conditions (HRECs). However, the assessment revealed environmental considerations associated with the subject property and nearby properties. Hazardous substances and petroleum products observed on -site during the Phase I site assessment included motor oils within two double - walled steel aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and one 55-gallon drum, lubricant/grease within three 15-gallon drums, and compressed gases. These materials were associated with the adjacent site to the east and are temporarily being stored on the subject property lot as the tenant vacated j the adjacent shop. In addition, three empty 55-gallon drums were observed on -site. These LJ materials appeared to be properly stored with secure lids at the time of the site reconnaissance. Minor amounts of oily surface staining were observed in various spots of the southern portion of the subject property lot. Absorbent material had been scattered across the staining. The staining was located on asphalt, and no drains of other direct conduits to the subsurface were observed in the vicinity. As a best practice, the ESA recommends that all drums are stored within a secondary FL containment. Based on the small size and surficial nature of the staining, it is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. There were no identified source of contamination based on the observations in the Phase I ESA; thus, a Phase II ESA is not recommended. Therefore, the effects of hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. APN 029-131-150, is currently occupied by Peninsula Prime Motorz, an automobile repair facility. The subject site was developed with the current building by the mid 1940s. Since that time, the a subject site has been occupied by various light industrial tenants, including a wire birdcage manufacturer (circa 1946), a dishwasher factory (circa 1949), an auto body/repair shop and cabinet shop (circa 1959), a building maintenance contractor (circa 1970), an automobile glass shop (circa j� 1977—mid 1980s), and various automotive repair shops (circa 1992—present). The Phase I ESA �I conducted on this parcel did not identify any RECs, CRECs, or HRECs. However, the assessment revealed environmental considerations associated with the subject property and nearby properties. Numerous containers of motor oil, antifreeze, and motor oil filters were observed during the site assessment of the automotive repair businesses. Although minor staining typical of automobile repair operations was observed in several areas, overall housekeeping appeared adequate to I prevent an impact to the subsurface subject property. In addition, no evidence of a release was LJ observed during the site reconnaissance. The subject property is not listed for any spills or releases in connection with the use or handling of these materials on the regulatory database. Based on this information and the good housekeeping observed, the current and former automotive repair operations at the subject property are not expected to represent a significant environmental n concern. According to Phase I study, the Burlingame Prime Motorz/On Track Automotive site is �I listed as a San Mateo Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA), Delisted County, Facility Index System (FINDS)/Facility Registry Service (FRS), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Generator List (RCRA GEN) site, due to the handling of hazardous substances and the generation of hazardous wastes on -site. According to the regulatory database, this site conducts general automotive repair and recycles waste oil/solvent. No violations or release incidents were reported for this site. Based on the lack of a reported release, gradient, and current regulatory status, the Phase I determined that this part of the project site was not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. Fu FirstCarbon Solutions 85 InI \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= C! —WONMI �010 VO SZ9-619 aweeupinB 6000EOSZ\ON WSI\6000£OSZ\£0£Z\(N(-Nd) 7uaID\su.11-ll9nd\'-Pe\S'T'OOZ'OT\\ suol;nlos uogJDJJS Id 98 Lam' AjolelnSai luaaan:) pue'lualpejS'asealaa pa:podaa e to Tel aql uo pasee -al!s s!ql aoj palaodai aaam sluap!:)ul asealaa JO suolleloln ON 'luanlos/l!o alsem sal:)A:)@a pue a!edai anllowolne leaauaB sl:)npuoo al!s slgl'asegelep AjolelnSai agl of Bulpio:):)y •al!s-uo salsem snopaezeq jo uolleaaueS aql pue sa:)uelsgns snopaezeq jo gullpueq aql jo asneoaq ails N39 VHD pUe SNj/S(1NIA 'Aluno0 palsllao '(ydf D) alou@SV wejgOJd palj!un pa!}!laa0 oaleVq ueS a se palsll sl 'al!s laafoad aql uo sl 4314m'9nllowolny N:)e.al u0/zioloVy aw!ad awegulline agl'esegelep AjolelnSai aql of gu!pioa:)y al!w ZO'0 Alalew!xoadde u!gl!m sells SHJ/SGNlj oml • al!w SZ'0 Alalewixoidde ulgllm sells AjunoD pals!laa aa.agl o al!ua SZ'0 Alalewixoidde ulgi!m al!s lsfl au0 • al!w OS-0 Alalewixoidde ulgl!m sells ism xis-Aivaml • al!w OS'0 Alalewixoidde ulgl!m ails mi au0 o aI!w OS'0 Alalewixoidde ulgl!m sells dnNb'31D anoj . allw T Alalewixoidde ulgl!m sells aolSoa1nu3 anoj o al!w SZ•0 Alaleualxoadde ulgl!m sells N39 V)JDH aaagl • al!w OS-0 Alalewlxoadde ulgl!m al!s dVUJN SI1DH3D auO 0 al!w OS-0 Alalewixoidde ulgl!m al!s SI1DH3D auO • al!w OS-0 Alalewixoidde ulgllm sells dOl aulu-Aluaml . al!w SZ-0 Alalewixoidde ulgl!m sells b'dn:) u9na13 • :Alaadoid loafgns aql }o a(l!UDIn agl u!gl!m sal!s gu!mollol aql pa!llluap! b'S3 I asegd aql al!s loafoid aql jo glaou sallw S'S Alalewixoidde pale:)ol sl ga!gm 'o:)s!auea j ueS glnoS ui uollelS aoueualu!eIN jSS/suealleD sl al!s palsll lsasoln aql pue'ls!l asalao:) OSl(i aql ui papnpui lou si l:)afoad aql 'al!s aql Aq pasod paezeq alelpawwi /pue woij luauauoalnua pue o!lgnd agl paloid of u9jel uaaq aneq suoipe tiessaaau Ile legl sainsua JSld Toljoeq aql uo al!s a Supeld aaopq -:)Si(] Aq uo paliom gu!aq Alluaiin:) lou aae legl (sasodind lelilsnpul aol pasn Alsnolnaid) sells plal}umoiq ao uolleSil!w aae q:)!qm „'sal!sle:)„ spell osle DSla 'ls!l asa:Po0 aql jo lied sy •(ls!l asavo:)) lsll sal!S sa:)uelsgnS pue alseM snopaezeH a sulelulew (DSla) loaluo:) saouelsgnS alxol}o luawlaedaa eluaoj!le:) agl'yb3J aql of luensind -pedwl lue:)!j!uSis uegl ssal Zluawuoalnua agl ao 3Jlgnd agl of paezeg lue3!}luSis a alean 11 pinom'llnsai a se 'pue S'Z96S9 uolPaS 8p00 luawuaanoE) of luensind polldwo3 sells slepolew snopiezeg;o lsll a uo papnl3ui s! 43lgm ails a uo palmol aq (p LJ •slepalew snopaezeq Alalme ao slepalew snopaezeq jo uolsslwa aql gBno.agl al!s l:)afoad aql jo aI!ua SZ'0 ulgl!m sloogz)s uo loedwi lueoij!ugls uegl ssal a aneq pinom �I l:)afoad agl'Alluanbasuo:) -uoll!lowap Sul.anp jo pasodslp Aliadoid aae slepalew Sulpl!nq gulls!xa legl ainsua pinom suo!leingai slepalew snopaezeq Su!ls!xa ql!m a:)ue!ldwoo'aaglan j •slepalew snopaezeq jo sall!luenb algelaodai jo lesods!p io'aBeaols'asn'laodsueal aql anlonul lou pinom I pue ainleu ul lelluaplsaa sl laafoad agl'anoge (qg•Z pue (eg'Z sloedwl ul passn3slp AIsnolna.ad sy •al!s l:)afoid slgl jo al!w SZ'0 u!gl!m paleool s! looq:)S gSlH aweSu!ling -pedw! lueal}lusis uegl ssal zloops posodoad ao Supswo ue jo allw aa:penb-auo ulgl!m alsem ao'sawelsgns'slepalew snopaezeq Alalnae ao snopaezeq alpueq jo suolsslwa snopaezeq llw3 (� uol;oaohaa anl;26aN pa;o6l;IwlApn;s In!;!u/ uW;onjon3Io;uawu04nu3 pafoid;uawdola-a anlJp oruao/ifo3 SZ9-6T9 puo;slhhag3 Io;uawuorinu3 amn6ullmg fo A;19 pll� E FL` F City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation status, further review of regulatory files of the adjacent site was not deemed necessary; therefore, this site is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. As such, there are no significant hazards to the public or environment associated with the project; thus, the impact would be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is located approximately 2.11 miles north of the project site. The San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan does not designate the project site as an area located within a restricted height zone. The project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; thus, no impact would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? n i No impact. Based on a review of aerial photography and the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project LJ site is approximately 7.2 miles from San Carlos Airport/Hiller Aviation. No impact would occur. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No impact. The project's access routes would remain consistent with those already in existence in the vicinity of the project site and meet all emergency access requirements of the City of Burlingame. Construction of the project would not create an obstruction to surrounding roadways or other access routes used by emergency response units and would not impair the implementation of an adopted LLJJ emergency response plan. As such, there would be no impact related to the impairment or with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. ninterference U h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed �f u with wildlands? No impact. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or (� death involving wildland fires, because there are no wildlands on or surrounding the project site. �j The site has an extensive history of development. Surrounding land uses consist of commercial buildings, multi -family residences, and single-family residences in a highly urbanized area. Fire protection services would continue to be provided by the Central County Fire Department. As such, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, and, thus, no impact would occur. FMitigation Measures None. FirstCarbon Solutions 87 F\\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\2803U80300D9\ISMND\23D30009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa Cityof Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? .............................................. . b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation ; Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact El ® ❑ i I ... ... ❑ ❑ ❑ i i ............. ❑ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result insubstantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? ................. d) ........................................................................................................................................................ .......................................... Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern El ..................................._..._..._......--------........----..................... ❑ ............. .........._..: ® ❑ of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? ............... ............._...................................................................................................................................... e) _....._..................... ................. Create or contribute runoff water which would ..................... _ ❑ ................. ....................... ......L._................_ ❑ ........_.....................................: ® ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ..........._.............................................I........................I.................................................................... f) - ........................................................................................................_;............._........_._...............;................................., Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ g) .......................................................................................................................I............. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ----.....-----.......------------------------___----I h) ..................................................................... ....................._............e................__...-.................................................................._..................._............._...........................__.., Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ............................................................................. i) ................................................................................................................ ................................ Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ............................................... ❑ ❑ J....................... ❑ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? El ElEl gg FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publl WtlonS\Client(PN-1N(\2803\29030009\ISMND\28030D09 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= C I I I City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Environmental Setting The project site is located in an area with primarily residential and commercial uses. The elevation of the project site is approximately 32 feet above mean sea level. The topography of the project site is relatively flat with a gentle overall slope towards the east, and surface gradients ranging from 20:1 to 10:1. The climate in the San Francisco Bay region is primarily characterized by cool, wet winters, and hot, dry summers. The average annual precipitation in the San Francisco Bay area is approximately 19.9 inches per year (Western Regional Climate Center). The project site overlies a portion of the San Mateo groundwater subbasin, which is part of the larger Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. The San Mateo subbasin consists of alluvial fan deposits derived from tributaries to the San Francisco Bay, which drain the basin (DWR 2004). The local drainage network serves the project. Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The primary potential impact of the n proposed project on hydrology and water quality would be on water quality within the San Francisco Bay (Bay) because of contaminants transported to the Bay in surface runoff. The population of the proposed project site is expected to increase by 55 persons, which would increase future (� concentrations of contaminants such as gasoline, motor oil, and antifreeze found in project stormwater runoff compared with existing levels. This population growth is consistent with the City of Burlingame General Plan Housing Element. C' C I F1 I Development of the proposed project would require compliance with the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, which requires that all storm drain systems shall be designed to remove stormwater from the area at a maximum rainfall intensity of 1 inch per hour and that lots shall be graded to provide stormwater removal at this rainfall rate (Municipal Code Section 26.16.090). A grading permit would be required (Municipal Code Section 18.20.030), and runoff from the project site would be evaluated for its potential to cause erosion (Municipal Code Section 18.20.060). Additionally, the city engineer or building official would inspect the project site after rough grading to ensure compliance with the grading permit (Municipal Code Section 18.20.080). Consequently, water quality standards or waste discharge requirements related to on -site impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. Because development of the proposed project would remove or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, the project has been identified as being required to meet Provisions C.3 and C.6 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), Order No. R2-2009-0074 and Order No.112-2011-0083, NPDES No. CAS612008. Current construction practices commonly employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) that minimize the discharge of pollutants from the site. BMPs are proven means to effectively control site runoff and run-on during construction and should be applied FirstCarbon Solutions 89 \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publlcations\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dw ISMND.d= City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project 1 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Ll at the project site. These BMPs are included in MM HYD-1, below. Implementation of MM HYD-1 would render potential construction -related impacts less than significant. Because the site is already developed, redevelopment as proposed would not substantially change the amount of impervious surfaces. Non -point source (NPS) pollutants are washed by rainwater from roofs, streets, parking areas, and landscape areas into the local drainage network. Pollutant concentrations in site runoff are dependent on a number of factors, including land use conditions; site drainage conditions; intensity and duration of rainfall; the climatic conditions preceding the rainfall event; rooftop materials and implementation of water quality BMPs. Because of the variability of urban runoff characteristics, it is difficult to estimate pollutant loads for NPS pollutants. Without proper mitigation, the proposed project could contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering the San Francisco Bay, potentially causing adverse effects on aquatic life and human health. Despite the fact that the project site is already developed, the disturbance of more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces will require the project to adhere to the Provision C.3 requirements of the countywide NPDES permit for post -construction stormwater runoff management. Fulfilling the requirements of Provision C.3 would address the post -construction stormwater controls for water quality. Implementation of MM HYD-2 would render post - construction -related water quality impacts less than significant. MM HYD-1 The project applicant shall prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following: • A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving n activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; • Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short- term biodegradable erosion control blankets; • Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at downstream storm drain inlets; • Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials, litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and • The post -construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. MM HYD-2 Prior to project approval, the project applicant shall prepare the appropriate documents consistent with San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) and NPDES Provisions C.3 and C.6 requirements for post - construction treatment and control of stormwater runoff from the site. Post - construction treatment measures must be designed, installed, and hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals 90 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030D09 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.doa I City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation n shall identify the owner and maintenance party responsible for the ongoing �( inspection and maintenance of the post -construction stormwater treatment measure in perpetuity. A maintenance agreement or other maintenance assurance must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a final construction inspection. I U F I I E b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? No impact. Domestic water supply in the City of Burlingame is provided by via the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Currently, the SFPUC provides water that is primarily supplied through surface water supplies from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. As such, no groundwater supplies would be required to serve the project's water needs. Furthermore, the project proposes the installation of walkways, entry paving, patio, and the garage driveway with pervious concrete, in place of the existing impervious surface, to allow percolation of precipitation into the ground. As such, the project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge and no impact would occur. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? Less than significant impact. The existing project site and its surroundings are developed with impervious surfaces. Redevelopment as proposed would not significantly alter the extent of impervious surfaces. Since the project would not substantially change the volume of stormwater runoff, the capacity of the existing infrastructure is sufficient to serve the project. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Less than significant impact. The existing project site and its surroundings are developed with impervious surfaces. Redevelopment as proposed would not significantly alter the extent of impervious surfaces. Furthermore, the proposed project proposes the installation of walkways, entry paving, patio, and the garage driveway with pervious concrete to allow percolation of precipitation into the ground. Since the project would not substantially change the volume of stormwater runoff, the capacity of the existing infrastructure is sufficient to serve the project. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. FirstCarbon Solutions \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= 91 r—1 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration u e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than significant impact. Implementation of the project would not significantly alter the area of impervious surfaces on -site. Furthermore, the proposed project proposes the installation of walkways, entry paving, patio, and the garage driveway with pervious concrete to allow percolation of precipitation into the ground. Since the project would not substantially change the volume of stormwater runoff, the capacity of the existing infrastructure is sufficient to serve the project. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2 would ensure that construction and post -construction activities would not result in degradation of water quality. Implementation of these measures would ensure that impacts related to the degradation of water quality would be rendered less than significant. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No impact. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps identify areas that are prone to flooding. According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map FIRM Number 06081C0134E, the project site is located in Zone X, "Other Flood Areas," which is defined as areas with a moderate to low risk of flooding, with a 0.2 percent annual chance of flood (500-year flood hazard area) or areas of 1 percent annual chance of floods with acreage depths of less than 1 foot. The project includes a parking garage on the ground level, with the residential use starting on the second floor; therefore, residential units would not be affected by 500-year floodwaters. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No impact. As previously indicated, no development or alterations are proposed within the 100- year flood zone. The project would not impede or redirect 100-year flood flows. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No impact. As indicated on San Mateo County's (ABAG) Dam Failure Inundation Areas map, the project site is not located within a dam inundation area (ABAG 2012). Furthermore, the project site is not protected by levees. As such, no impact would occur related to the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss involving flooding. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No impact. Seiches are waves on inland bodies of water typically created by seismic movement. The project site is not located near any inland bodies of water subject to seiches. A tsunami is a large tidal wave generated by an earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption. Large earthquakes occurring in the 92 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publiwtlons\Client(PN.JN)\2803\28030009\ISMNDU8030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Pacific Ocean can generate seismic waves such as tsunamis. The project site is located more than 0.75 mile from the San Francisco Bay. The Burlingame General Plan Safety Element indicates that tsunami inundation is limited to the immediate shoreline areas, and the project site is not located in a tsunami inundation area. Further, the project site is located in a relatively flat area and, therefore, would not be exposed to mudslides. For these reasons, the project site would not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow and no impact would occur. Rrst[arbon Solutions \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2903\29030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.doa 93 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,_, Environmental Issues _...... ............. _. ................ . .._..._......___.___ 10. Land Use and Planning Would the project: Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant ` Mitigation Significant No Impact i Incorporated ! Impact 1 Impact ................ ........... ........ .... a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ................................................. ......--. ... ..... b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ . ❑ ❑ policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ........... ..... .._........-........-..............-............__........_....-.._................... .........................--.....................................................-..................................., c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ................................................ .................... ................... ........................ ............, ❑ ❑ plan or natural communities conservation plan? Environmental Setting The project site is surrounded by an established urban area and has an extensive history of development. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan area. The parcel at 621 California Drive has an automobile repair facility, and the parcel at 625 California Drive has two dwelling units. Currently, the parcel at 619 California Drive is vacant but has been paved over with concrete. The project site is adjacent to the Caltrain railway. Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local road or bridge that would impair mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area. The project site is surrounded by an established urban area and has an extensive history of development. The project site would not provide any access routes between adjoining areas. Replacement of the automobile repair facility and the two dwelling units with the proposed live/work units would be consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations of the site. As such, implementation of the project would not disrupt or divide an established community and no impact would occur. 94 FirstCarbon Solutions \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Cllent(PN-JN(\2903\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.doa City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an Genvironmental effect? No impact. The project would not conflict with planned land use for both the Burlingame Municipal Code and the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan allows live/work units in the North California Drive Commercial District, where the project site is located. Although service commercial uses dominate this area, live/work development is permitted as well. a The proposed project would develop 26 live/work units with space for commercial occupancy. The proposed project would be consistent with the Specific Plan goals, LU-3, LU-S, LU-6, and D-4. The goals are to ensure an economically viable and pedestrian -friendly downtown with both local aretailers and regional destination stores while establishing sensitive transitions between existing residential area and the downtown area. Furthermore, the goals would promote diversity in housing aThe type and affordability within the Downtown area. proposed project would be permissible under the Burlingame Municipal Code as well, which zones the site under the C-2, North California Drive Commercial District. The proposed project shall be compliant with the Code's Section 25.31.060, which permits live/work units above the first floor only. The first floor of the proposed is planned to be for commercial uses with the live/work units in a the floors above. The proposed building will be under the 55-foot height limit and would be consistent with the regulations set by the Municipal Code. Because the project would be consistent with the Burlingame Municipal Code and the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, there would be no impacts. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? allo impact. No Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans apply to the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in any conflict with adopted plans. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures C None. C 1 11 FirstCartion Solutions 95 \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publiwtions\Client(PN-JN)\2803\25030009USMND\28030009 Burlingame 619625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d= Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ...... -- __ __.._.___ _ ... ... . Less than Significant Potentially Impact with I Less than i t gation SignificantNo Environmental Issues Impact Slg orporated Incorporated mpact Impact _ . ....._.. .... __... 11. Mineral Resources J Would the project: --- _-------- ..-. -- ---------- .............. .----- .------------ .._ , ...-........................... .............. ................ ...... r� a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ..................................................._..-......_...............-............_..-......._._...._..............,,....._...................- .......................... b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan •. or other land use plan? Environmental Setting The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies the regional significance of mineral resources in accordance with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) have been designated to indicate the significance of mineral deposits. The MRZ categories are as follows: • MRZ-1: Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-2: Areas where adequate information indicates significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-3: Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. • MRZ-4: Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ. Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No impact. As indicated on the Mineral Resources Map of the San Mateo County General Plan,' there are no known mineral resources located within the project site or the project site's vicinity. No impact would occur. g San Mateo, County of. 1986. General Plan, Mineral Resource Map. Website: http:Hplanning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org /files/SMC-GP%201986.pdf. Accessed November 13, 2017. 96 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publlcations\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030D09\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-62S CA Dr Dev ISM ND.d= l� City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. No mineral extraction activities exist on the project site and mineral extraction is not included within the project's design. As indicated on the Mineral Resources Map of the San Mateo County General Plan, there are no known mineral resources located within the project site or the project site's vicinity. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None. FirstCarbon Solutions 97 \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 C4 Dr Dev ISM ND.doa City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration .. ......... Less than _. ..._- ....__. _._.-. Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation I Significant No Environmental Issues __....... ............ __.... . _.. .... .. _... _.._.... Impact i Incorporated ........._ Impact ... ..... Impact 12. Noise Would the project result in: .......................... ........_....................__......................................................................................... a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ------------------------ El ❑ ............ ® ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ...................................................................................................................................................................................................._....- ; b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ ! ----- .......----- ._.............................................................. ❑ ® .................. ............... ❑ excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ..... ...... .... _. ........ ......... ..... ............ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ........ ........... ❑ . ❑ ® ............ ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? .......... .._------------------ ---....__ .... _...._..................... ---- d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ......... ❑ 1 ❑ ® ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ...................................... ....................... _.............. ................................... .................................................................... .._................................_.............................................;......................................_...................................... e) For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ...........................................................................................................__..........................._......_............_................._..._.........._........_......_.........._......_:......................................-....:........-_.._....--..._...-... f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Environmental Setting Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. Noise is typically generated by transportation, specific land uses, and ongoing human activity. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (d6). The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. A change of 3 dB is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. While a change of 5 dBA is considered to be the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments. gg FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publlcatlona\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030D09 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.doa City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, the A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) was derived to relate noise to the sensitivity of humans, which gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A -weighted sound level is the a basis for a number of various sound level metrics, including the day/night sound level (Ld„) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), both of which represent how humans are more sensitive to sound at night. In addition, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the average sound renergy of time -varying noise over a sample period and the L,„a,t is the maximum instantaneous noise LJ level occurring over a sample period. FGroundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. When assessing annoyance from groundborne noise, vibration is typically expressed as root mean square (rms) velocity in units of decibels of 1 micro -inch per second. To distinguish vibration levels from noise levels, the unit is written as "VdB." Human perception to vibration starts at levels as low as 67 VdB and sometimes lower. Annoyance due to vibration in residential settings starts at approximately 70 VdB. Common sources of groundborne vibration include construction activities such as blasting, pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. Construction vibration impacts on building structures are generally assessed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV). Typical vibration source levels from construction equipment are shown in Table 13. aTable 13: Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment III J E 0 - - ---- ----- ---------- - .............. . .... Construction Equipment .................- ............... ........................ PPV t a25 Feet (inches/second) ..... ............................. _...._.......................................... . RMS Velocity in Decibels (VdB) at 25 Feet Water Trucks 0.001 57 Scraper 0.002 58 Bulldozer —small Jackhammer Concrete Mixer 0.003 —� 0.035 0.046 58 79 81 =Concretemp 0.046 81 Paver 0.046 � 81 Pickup Truck ............. ............_.............._..................................__..�......_...._......_.........._._..........__....._...........__..............................� 0.046 81 .............................,.._..............,........._.._................................___......._._------------- � Auger Drill Rig j 0.051 I 82 ___....._.___.__--- _._...__.............................,..___..-............ ___........___.._...._._....__.__.._....._....._._........................._............_.._......_._._........-._......._----...........___..._.....................-------.........___....... Backhoe 0.051 82 Crane (Mobile) 0.051 82 Excavator v 0.051 i 82 _ Grader 0.051 82 Loader 0.051 � 82 —� - I Loaded 0.076�._.. 86 FirstCarbon Solutions 99 a\\50.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Cllmt (PN-JN)\2803U3030DD9\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.doa LJ City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project j Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 13 (cont.): Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment _..._..........._._..........------ ___....._...._------ __._.__._........ .......... _._.....____..._._ Construction Equipment ..............._................ ....-....___.......... __...... _..._...... ....... ___....... _._..... _.................... _............... .__- ....... _...... __� PPV at 25 Feet (inches/second) RMS Velocity in Decibels (VdB) at 25 Feet Bulldozer —Large � 0.089��__-..._. _._.. 87 _. ___ i Caisson drilling 0.089 87 Vibratory Roller (small) 0.101 88 Compactor 0.138 90 Clam shovel drop 0.202 94 Vibratory Roller (large) 1 0.210 94 — Pile Driver (impact -typical) 0.644 104 Pile Driver (impact -upper range)_ 1.518 _ 112 _ Source: Compilation of scientific and academic literature, generated by FTA and FHWA. Propagation of vibration through soil can be calculated using the vibration reference equation of: Where: PPV= PPV ref * (25/D)An (in/sec) PPV = reference measurement at 25 feet from vibration source D = distance from equipment to property line N = vibration attenuation rate through ground According to Chapter 12 of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2006), an "n" value of 1.5 is recommended to calculate vibration propagation through typical soil conditions. The FTA has established industry accepted standards for vibration impact criteria and impact assessment. These guidelines are published in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document (FTA 2006). The FTA guidelines include thresholds for construction vibration impacts for various structural categories, as shown in Table 14. Table 14: Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria _......................._..._....._....._.....__._._......_..............__.._..___..........._............_..........................................._...._...._- _--------.._-----.---__.._.......... .._....,.........._......_............,..__........__...........__......I Building Category (_..m/sec PPV Approximate VdB I. Reinforced —Concrete, Steel or Timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 Il. Engineered Concrete and Masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non Engineer Timber and Masonry Buildings j 0.2 94 ' IV. Buildings Extremely Susceptible to Vibration Damage 0.12 90 _ Source: FTA, 2006. 100 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.daa l J J I 1 City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Existing Noise Sources Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation The proposed project site is located in the City of Burlingame, California at the intersection of California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue. The project site is adjacent to multi -family residential land uses to the south, retail and multi -family residential uses to the west, an auto body shop to the east, and California Drive to the north. The existing noise sources at the project site are from traffic along California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue and railroad activity from Caltrain located approximately 200 feet to the north. The existing noise levels at the project site were documented through a noise monitoring effort performed at the project site. A total of two short-term and one long-term noise measurements were conducted. Exhibit 10 shows the locations of the noise measurements. The two short-term measurements (15 minutes each) were taken on Wednesday, January 10, 2018. Short-term noise measurement ST-1 was taken at the western corner of the project site on the sidewalk adjacent to Oak Grove Avenue. The resulting measurement showed that ambient noise levels at this location averaged'65.1 dBA Leq. As was observed by the technician at the time of the noise measurement, the dominant noise source in the project vicinity was traffic traveling along (� u California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue, and from trains passing on the nearby Caltrain railway. Short-term noise measurement ST-2 was taken at the eastern corner of the project site next to the Olde English auto repair shop. The resulting measurement showed that ambient noise levels at this U location averaged 67.6 dBA LeQ. As was observed by the technician at the time of the noise measurement, the dominant noise source in the project vicinity was traffic traveling along California n �j Drive and from trains passing on the nearby Caltrain railway. Table 15 shows the results of the short-term noise measurements. The noise measurement data asheets are provided in Appendix G of this document. Table 15: Noise Monitoring Summary ........._..._......__.........__.._.....__............_.......... ............_..........._......... .__..... ............... _ Site Location Location Description —Primary Noise Sources dBA Ley dBA Lmax dBA Lmin Western corner of project site, on sidewalk i ST-1 adjacent to Oak Grove Avenue —car traffic, 65.1 85.9 j 51.1 lJ passing trains and birds. I i Eastern corner of project site, on sidewalk—�—� I ST-2 adjacent to California Drive —car traffic and I 67.6 84.4 52.7 U passing trains. Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2018 Long-term measurement LT-1 was taken on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 beginning at 10:56 a.m. and ending on Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 11:03 a.m. for a total of 24 hours and 6 minutes. LT-1 was taken at the southern corner of the project site near the Olde English auto repair shop. L� FirstCarbon Solutions 101 \\50.200.1.5\adec\Publlntions\Client(PN-JN)\2803\280300D9\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.doa r—, i tJ City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-615 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration _ The resulting measurement showed that ambient noise levels at this location averaged 68.5 dBA CNEL. The long-term measurement data is provided in Appendix G of this document. Regulatory Framework The project site is located within the City of Burlingame, which is within San Mateo County. This analysis was performed using the City's noise regulations. The City of Burlingame provides policies and regulations for noise in the Noise Element of the Burlingame General Plan (City of Burlingame 1975), Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (City of Burlingame 2010) and Burlingame Municipal Code (City of Burlingame 2017). City of Burlingame General Plan The City of Burlingame General Plan establishes noise standards for various land uses. The policies contained in the Noise Element serve as a guide for identifying noise levels, and reducing or avoiding adverse noise effects on residents. The City of Burlingame has established maximum allowable outdoor noise level guidance standards for new land use developments (shown in Table 16). Because of the mixed -use nature of the proposed project (a live -work building that would contain commercial, office, and residential space), the closest applicable type of land use category that applies to this project is the Commercial land use category. Under this classification, environments with a maximum outdoor noise level of up to 65 CNEL are considered acceptable for new commercial land use development. The City of Burlingame has established acceptable interior noise standards. According to the City's General Plan, the standard for interior noise levels is 45 dBA CNEL. The City of Burlingame has established substantial permanent increase noise criteria. According to the City's General Plan, no person shall be allowed to cause noise to be emitted past a property line that would cause ambient noise levels to increase by more than 5 dBA. Table 16: Outdoor Noise Level Planning Criteria Site Location* Maximum Outdoor Noise Levels (dBA) Land Use Categories CNEL Public, Quasi -Public and Residential: Schools, Hospitals, Libraries, Auditoriums, I 60 Intensively Used Parks and Playgrounds, Public Buildings, Single Family Home, f Multiple Family Apartments and Condominiums, Mobile Home Parks Passively -Used Open Space: Wilderness -Type Parks, Nature or Contemplation ' 45 Areas of Public Parks I Commercial: Shopping Centers, Self -Generative Business, Commercial Districts, 65 Offices, Banks, Clinics, Hotels and Motels Industrial: Non -Manufacturing Industry, Transportation, Communications, Utilities, 75 Manufacturing Source: City of Burlingame, 1975. Burlingame General Plan. 102 FirstCarbon Solutions \\10.2001.5\adec\Publications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.do LJ Legend Project Site '0 "-4?Q Noise measurement Locations .0e %NIX Cp ST-1 r t ` �, ST-2 LT-1 b i n g 4� 41, Fl 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK E Cityof Burlingame r 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation II Lam' Downtown Specific Plan The Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan was prepared to provide a more focused vision for the City's Downtown district. The Downtown Specific Plan is a policy document and implementation _ guide that details proposed land uses, infrastructure improvements, development standards, and LI ' measures required to achieve these goals. Additionally, the Downtown Specific Plan outlines noise standards and discusses existing ambient noise measurements in Chapter J. Ell The Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan requires that project contractors implement best management practices to reduce the impact of construction noise to off -site receptors. The Downtown Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) concluded that construction noise Eimpacts in the Downtown Specific Plan area would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure J-1. C( Mitigation Measure J-1 Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Construction Noise. The City shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor. • Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: - Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; - Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; - Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and - Minimize backing movements of equipment. • Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible. • Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically - powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible. • Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • Select routes for movement of construction -related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Community Development Department so that noise -sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible. • The project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" for construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\PubIIcatlans\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Or Oev ISM ND.dou 105 i� City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-62S California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem. • The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. City of Burlingame Municipal Code The City also addresses noise in the noise ordinances of the Municipal Code. These ordinances are intended to implement the policies of the noise element of the General Plan and provide standards for noise mitigation that are intended to limit exposure to unhealthy effects of noise. The City does not set a specific quantifiable noise level limit for construction. Rather, construction activity noise is regulated by limiting construction activity to the least intrusive periods; thus, the City provides an exemption to the noise performance standards for construction activities under specified conditions. Section 18.07.110 limits the hours of construction to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and no work on Sundays and holidays. The City sets noise limits and operational requirements for mechanical equipment in Section 25.58.050. According to this section, mechanical equipment shall include machines and devices, including HVAC units, fans, vents, generators and elevator motors, integral to the regular operation of climate control, electrical and similar building systems. Mechanical equipment shall not exceed a maximum daytime (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.) outdoor noise level of 60 dBA or a maximum nighttime (10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m.) outdoor noise level of 50 dBA as measured at the receiving property. Environmental Evaluation Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if the project resulted in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels that exceed the standards established by the City of Burlingame General Plan or City noise ordinance. Short-term Construction Impacts A significant impact would occur if the project resulted in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels that exceed the construction noise standards established in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.07.110. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project. First, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the project site ',1 106 FirstCarbon Solutions MPublicatlon5\C11ent(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMNDA— n i.L City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation (vehicle engine noise, the sound of vehicle doors shutting, etc.). Although there would be a rl relatively high single -event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance, the effect on longer -term (hourly or daily) ambient noise levels would be small. Therefore, short-term, construction -related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would be less than significant. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during construction on the project site. Construction noise levels are rarely steady in nature and often fluctuate depending on the type and number of equipment being used at any given time. In addition, there could be times where large equipment is not operating and noise would be at or near normal ambient levels. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery and compacting equipment, such as bulldozers, draglines, backhoes, front loaders, roller compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. A characteristic of noise is that each doubling of the sound sources with equal strength increases the r-, noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some Ldistance from the other equipment, the worst -case combined noise level during the loudest phase of construction, the site preparation phase, would be 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the (� acoustic center of construction activity (where multiple pieces of construction equipment are operating all at 50 feet from a single point). The closest noise -sensitive land uses to the west of the project site are multi -family residential land LJ uses along Oak Grove Avenue, the closest of which is located approximately 100 feet from the acoustic center of the nearest construction footprint where multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment could operate simultaneously. At this distance, worst -case construction noise levels y could range up to approximately 84 dBA Lmax intermittently when construction activities occur at the nearest construction footprint. The closest noise -sensitive land uses to the south and southeast of the project site are apartment buildings approximately 55 feet from the nearest construction footprint acoustic center where multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment could potentially be operating simultaneously. At this distance, worst -case noise levels could range up to approximately 89 dBA Lmax intermittently when multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment operate simultaneously at the portion of the project site nearest these buildings. FirstCarbon Solutions 107 V:\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.dca City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The closest noise -sensitive land uses to the east of the project site are commercial uses, including an auto body shop, a gas station, and a convenience store along California Drive. The closest land use is an auto body shop located adjacent to the project site and approximately 20 feet from the acoustic center of the nearest construction footprint where multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment could operate simultaneously. At this distance, worst -case noise levels could range up to approximately 97 dBA Lmex intermittently when multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment operate simultaneously at the portion of the project site nearest this building. However, these worst -case noise levels would likely not affect employees of the auto body shop because they would be working inside and would not be exposed directly to construction activity noise. In addition, the convenience store and gas station are located approximately 67 feet to the east of the nearest construction footprint where heavy construction equipment would potentially be operating, and are shielded by the auto body shop structure. Under these conditions, worst -case noise levels could range up to approximately 79 dBA Lmax intermittently when construction activities occur at the portion of the project site nearest these buildings. The closest off -site land uses to the north of the project site are residential land uses on the corner of Oak Grove Ave and Linden Ave. The closest residential land use is located approximately 430 feet from the proposed project site footprint. Thus, worst -case maximum noise levels from construction activities could range up to approximately 72 dBA Lmax when operation of heavy construction equipment occurs at the portion of the project site closest to this residential building. The City of Burlingame's Municipal Code outlines the City's standards for noise producing construction activities. As discussed above, Municipal Code Section 18.07.110 provides that construction activities are permitted on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and no work on Sundays and holidays. In addition, the Downtown Specific Plan MND concluded that construction noise impacts in the Downtown Specific Plan area would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure J-1, of the MND. Therefore, by restricting construction activities to the City's permissible time periods and by implementing the best management noise reduction techniques and practices outlined in Mitigation Measure J-1 of the Downtown Specific Plan MND, potential short-term construction noise levels would be reduced to a less than significant impact on sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. Traffic Noise Impacts A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would be exposed to transportation noise levels in excess of the City's maximum outdoor noise level standard of 65 dBA CNELfor commercial land uses or if the project were exposed to interior noise levels that would exceed the City's interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77- 108) was used to evaluate existing and future project -related traffic noise conditions along modeled roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site. The projected future traffic noise levels on roadways adjacent to the project site were analyzed to determine compliance with the City's noise and r� 108 FirstCarbon Solutions Y.\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\2803D009 Burl l ngame 519-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.doa (-1 �J n t� 7 City of Burlingame 619-62S California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation land use compatibility standards. Traffic modeling was performed using the data obtained from the project -specific traffic study conducted by Hexagon (2018). This traffic study provides data for existing (year 2018) and existing plus project conditions. The resultant noise levels were weighed and summed over a 24-hour period to determine the CNEL values. The traffic noise modeling input and output files —including the 60 dBA, 65 dBA, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contour distances —are included in Appendix G. Table 17 shows a summary of the traffic noise levels for existing (year 2018) and existing plus project conditions, with and without the project as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. Table 17: Modeled Traffic Noise Levels i f Roadway Segment California Drive —West of Oak Grove Avenue California Drive —East of Oak Grove Avenue Oak Grove Avenue —South of California Drive Source: FirstCarbon Solutions 2018. CNEL (dBA) 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane Existing No Existing + Increase over Existing No Project Project Project (dBA) -- 65.2 ' 65.2 0.0 65.6 65.6 0.0 56.4 56.5 0.1 As shown in Table 17, the project site would be exposed to traffic noise levels ranging up to 65.6 dBA CNEL under existing plus project conditions from traffic along California Drive east of Oak Grove Avenue. The closest point of the project to the centerline of California Drive would be the north facade of the proposed building. The fagade would be located approximately 45 feet from the centerline of California Drive. At this distance, traffic noise levels from California Drive would range up to approximately 66.5 dBA CNEL. These noise levels are in excess of the City's outdoor noise level planning criteria of 65 dBA CNELfor new commercial land use developments. Although traffic noise levels would expose persons to traffic noise levels in excess of the 65 CNEL dBA standard, the General Plan acknowledges that suggested "levels are most probably unattainable in much of Burlingame." In addition to traffic noise levels, the project site is exposed to railroad noise sources. The existing ambient noise environment was documented through the ambient noise measurement effort. The measured 24-hour average ambient noise level on the project site was 68.5 dBA CNEL. This measurement captured all transportation noise sources in the project vicinity, including noise from railroad noise sources. Again, similar to the modeled traffic noise levels discussed above, these measured ambient noise levels are in excess of the City's outdoor noise level planning criteria of 65 dBA CNELfor new commercial land use developments. Therefore, compliance with acceptable interior noise levels would reduce this impact to less than significant. r� (— FirstCarbon Solutions 109 Y:\Publications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030D09\15MND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Or Dev ISM ND.doa f 1� LJ City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-615 California Drive Development Project i Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration I Based on the EPA's Protective Noise Levels,9 with a combination of walls, doors, and windows, standard construction for residences would provide 25 dBA in exterior -to -interior noise reduction with windows closed and 15 dBA or more with windows open. With windows open, interior noise levels of the proposed live -work units nearest to California Drive would not meet the interior noise standard of 45 _I dBA CNEL (68.5 dBA-15.0 dBA = 53.5 dBA). However, an alternative form of ventilation, such as air conditioning, would allow windows to remain closed and the project to meet the interior noise level L standard of 45 dBA CNEL (68.5 dBA-25.0 dBA = 43.5 dBA). The project design includes air conditioning I units for the proposed live/work units. Since the proposed air conditioning units would give an ! j occupant the option of controlling noise by keeping the windows shut, traffic noise impacts to the proposed live -work units would be less than significant. Operational/Stationary Source Noise Impacts The proposed project would include new stationary noise sources such as mechanical ventilation equipment. These potential point sources could affect noise -sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project's stationary noise sources would result in an exceedance of the City's maximum allowable noise level standards. The City sets noise limits and operational requirements for mechanical equipment in Section 25.58.050 of its Municipal Code. This section requires that mechanical equipment shall not exceed a maximum daytime (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.) outdoor noise level of 60 dBA or a maximum nighttime (10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m.) outdoor noise level of 50 dBA as measured from the property line. Mechanical Equipment Operations The proposed mechanical ventilation equipment, including heating and air conditioner compressors and fans, would be located in the southeast corner of the project site at ground level and are anticipated to generate the highest noise levels of the project's stationary noise sources. At the time of preparation of this analysis, specific details of mechanical ventilation systems were not available; therefore, a reference noise level for typical commercial grade mechanical ventilation systems was used. Noise levels from typical commercial mechanical ventilation equipment range up to approximately 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet. The nearest off -site sensitive receptor is the residential building located southeast of the project site. This building is located approximately 37 feet from the proposed mechanical ventilation equipment. At this distance, noise levels generated by the proposed mechanical ventilation equipment would attenuate to less than 56 dBA Leq at the fagade of the nearest off -site sensitive receptor. However, the project site plans propose the construction of a 6-foot fence along the project site's southern boundary. Because the proposed mechanical ventilation equipment would be positioned at ground level in the southeast corner of the project site, the proposed 6-foot fence would block the line of site between the nearest receptor and proposed mechanical ventilation equipment, providing at minimum, an additional 4 dBA of noise attenuation. Furthermore, the mechanical equipment will be enclosed by perforated steel rolling panels which would provide a minimum of a 3 dBA shielding reduction. With the additional noise attenuation provided by the proposed fence and the steel panel enclosure, noise levels would attenuate to approximately 50 dBA Leq as measured at the nearest off -site receptor. Therefore, noise levels generated by mechanical ventilation equipment would be below the both the City's daytime and 9 EPA 550/9-79-100, November 1978 110 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publicatians\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030D09 Buff Ingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMNO.docx F" L City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and n Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation nighttime maximum outdoor noise level standards. Therefore, noise impacts from project mechanical ventilation equipment would be less than significant. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact. Groundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. Although groundborne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. When assessing annoyance from groundborne vibration, vibration is typically expressed as root mean square (rms) velocity in units of decibels of 1 micro -inch per second. To distinguish vibration levels from noise levels, the unit is written as "VdB." In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. Common sources of groundborne vibration include construction activities such as blasting, pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. However, construction vibration impacts on building structures are generally assessed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV). For purposes of this analysis, project related impacts are expressed in terms of PPV. Typical vibration source levels from construction equipment are shown in Table 13. Short-term Construction Impacts Of the variety of equipment that would be used during construction, small vibratory rollers would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Impact equipment such as pile drivers is not expected to be used during construction of this project. Small vibratory rollers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.101 inch per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the operating equipment. The closest structure to the construction footprint is an auto body shop east of the project site on California Drive. The closest facade of this structure is located approximately 10 feet from the footprint where a vibratory would operate during compaction for the proposed foundation construction. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels could range up to 0.399 PPV from the L operation of a small vibratory roller. This is below the industry standard vibration damage criterion of 0.5 PPV for this type of structure, a building of reinforced concrete construction. I'; L The nearest off -site residential structure to the proposed construction areas where heavy construction equipment would operate would be the residential structures located southwest of the project site, approximately 30 feet from the proposed construction footprint where heavy equipment would operate. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels could range up to 0.076 PPV from operation of a small vibratory roller. This is below the industry standard vibration damage criterion of 0.2 PPV for this type of structure, a building of non -engineered timber construction. Therefore, construction - related groundborne vibration impacts would be considered less than significant. First[arbon Solutions 111 Y:\Publlcatlon$\Client(PN-)N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030D09 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa r_7 I U f -1 L.I City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-62S California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration j 'L Operational Vibration Impacts Implementation of the project would not include any permanent sources that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the project vicinity. The project site is located approximately 190 feet south of the railroad centerline. This distance is sufficient to attenuate any vibration from railroad activity to levels that would not be perceptible without instruments within the project site. Therefore, project operational groundborne vibration level impacts would be considered less than significant. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than significant impact. Significant noise impacts to off -site receptors would occur if the project would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared with noise levels existing without the project. According to the City of Burlingame General Plan, new projects that would result in an increase in ambient noise levels of more than 5 dBA CNEL above existing background noise levels at the property line would be considered a significant impact. The stated maximum allowable exterior noise levels for residential land uses are 60 CNEL dBA Ln,ax. However, the City of Burlingame General Plan acknowledges that these suggested levels are most likely unattainable in much of the City. Traffic Noise Impacts The highest traffic noise level increase with implementation of the project would occur along Oak Grove Avenue south of California Drive to project access under existing plus project conditions. Along this roadway segment, the project would result in an increase of 0.1 dBA under plus project conditions. This increase is well below the 5 dBA CNEL increase that would be considered a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels compared with noise levels that would exist without the project. In addition, the Downtown Specific Plan determined that 24-hour average outdoor noise levels within the Plan Area, of which the project site is a part, would not substantially increase with full buildout. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Stationary Noise Source Impacts to Off -site Receptors The proposed project would include new stationary noise sources such as parking lot activities and mechanical ventilation system equipment. A significant impact would occur for the proposed live -work development if new stationary noise sources would result in an increase in ambient noise levels of more than 5 dBA CNEL above existing background noise levels. The nearest off -site receptors would be located approximately 30 feet from the nearest acoustic center -' of parking lot activity. While this receptor could experience noise levels from periodic parking lot activities ranging from approximately 64 to 74 dBA Lmax, these noise levels are well below the observed L,,,axof 97.5 dBA at long-term measurement Site 1. In addition, these single -event maximum noise level JI activities would only occur for a cumulative of a minute or two within any hour, and would therefore I 112 FirstCarbon Solutions LJ Y:\PubllcaUons\Client (PN-1N (\2903\29030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.do I h L City of Burlingame 619-62S California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation L_' not result in a perceptible increase in the hourly average noise levels in the project vicinity. Therefore, r noise levels generated by parking lot activities would not increase existing ambient noise levels by 5 L dBA CNEL above existing background noise levels. The impact of noise produced by project -related parking lot activities on sensitive off -site receptors would be less than significant. As discussed previously, noise levels from typical residential mechanical ventilation equipment are anticipated to range up to approximately 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet. Mechanical ventilation systems could be located as close as 45 feet to the nearest off -site receptors —the residential condominiums that border the south side of the project site. At this distance and with the attenuation provided by the proposed 6-foot fence along the project site's southern border, noise generated by mechanical ventilation equipment would attenuate to approximately 50 dBA Leq at the nearest off -site residential receptor. As indicated by short-term measurement ST-1, which as seen in Exhibit 9 is closest to the residential condominiums on Oak Grove Avenue, ambient noise levels as measured at short-term measurement ST-1 location nearest to this receptor range up to approximately 65.1 dBA Leq during the day. Therefore, mechanical ventilation equipment operational noise levels would not increase existing ambient noise levels by 5 dBA at any property lines adjacent to the proposed project site. The impact of mechanical ventilation equipment operational noise levels on sensitive off -site receptors would be less than significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than significant impact. As described under Impact NOI-1, noise impacts could occur during ground clearing, excavation, and foundation construction activities on the project site. As shown in this discussion, the closest off -site residential dwelling unit would be located approximately 30 feet to the south of the acoustic center of construction activity where multiple pieces of heavy machinery would operate. At this distance, construction noise levels at the exterior facade of the nearest single-family residential home would be expected to range up to 94 dBA Lmex, with a worst -case hourly average of 90.4 dBA Leq, intermittently, when multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment operate simultaneously at the nearest center of construction activity. Although there would be a relatively high single -event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance, the effect on longer -term (hourly or daily) ambient noise levels would be small. The project would be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code requirements including the permissible hours of construction. Therefore, compliance with the City's permissible hours of construction, as well as implementation Mitigation Measure J-1 of the Downtown Specific Plan, outlining standard construction noise reduction measures would ensure that construction noise would not result in substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels and would be considered a less than significant impact. FirstCarbon Solutions 113 Y:\Publlcatlons\Client(PN-1N)\2803\2803D009\15MND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev 15MND.docn �1 I, Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project rl Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is located approximately 2.11 miles north of the project site. In addition, the project is located in the airport land use plan (ALUP) for SFO according to the Downtown Specific Plan. However, the project site is not located within the 60 dBA CNEL or higher contour of the noise exposure map. Therefore, airport noise at the site would be less than the 60 dBA CNEL maximum required for residential land uses. As a result, no impact would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The project site is approximately 7.2 miles from San Carlos Airport/Hiller Aviation. There would be no impact due to proximity to a private airstrip because the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Mitigation Measures None. 114 First[arbon Solutions V:\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Or Dev ISMND.dau ,J i L City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 13. Population and Housing Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Environmental Setting Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation Less than Significant No Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ This analysis is based on the potential demographic changes caused by the project in residents associated with the project. According to the California Department of Finance, the City of Burlingame's estimated population for 2017 is approximately 30,148. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments, the population is expected to grow to 31,700 by the year 2020. Burlingame's 2015-2023 Housing Element explains that the average household size is 2.3 persons per household in the City. Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than significant impact. The project site currently consists of an automobile repair facility and two dwelling units. Based on the City's average persons per household of 2.3, the two dwelling units house approximately 5 persons. The project would replace the existing use with a 26 unit live/work development that would be expected to house approximately 60 persons based on the 2.3-person multiplier. The net gain would be 24 dwelling units, increasing the populations by as much as 55 persons. The project would be consistent with the project site's C-2 zoning district regulations. The population growth would be FirstCarbon Solutions 115 Y:\Publications\Client(PN-)N(\2903\290300D9\ISMND\280300D9 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.docx �I City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project I' i Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration LI consistent with Burlingame General Plan Housing Element. The implementation of the project would not induce substantial population growth within the City of Burlingame and the impact would l f be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. While the project would remove two dwelling units, it would construct 26 live/work units, thereby increasing the number of housing units in the City by 24. Therefore, this project does L_I not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less than significant impact. Residents of the existing two dwelling units would be required to relocate. According to the California Department of Finance, the City of Burlingame is estimated to have a total of 13,114 housing units, of which only 12,304 units are occupied. As such, alternative housing for the existing residents is readily available and the project would not displace a substantial number of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None. rl 116 FirstCarbon Solutions J YAPublications\Client(PN-1N(\2803\28030D09\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMNO.docx LJ r L City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Less than Significant `! Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No _ Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 14. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable L' service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f d) Parks? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ r Environmental Setting Fire Services The project site is located within the incorporated City of Burlingame in San Mateo County. The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the City of Burlingame and the communities of Hillsborough and Millbrae. The Fire Department operates six fire stations, two of which are located in the City of Burlingame: CCFD Fire Station 34, located at 799 California Drive (0.2 mile from the project site) and CCFD Fire Station 35, located at 2832 Hillside Drive (1.8 miles from the project site).CCFD Fire Station 36, located at 1399 Rollins Road (1.1 miles from the project site) was closed in August 2010 because of budget reductions, but continues to operate as administrative offices for CCFD. The EMS Division of Central County Fire also provides ambulance services to the City of Burlingame and surrounding communities. The Department responds to approximately 5,000 calls annually. Police Services Police services in Burlingame are provided by the Burlingame Police Department (Police Department). The Police Department is headquartered at 1111 Trousdale Drive in Burlingame. All law enforcement operations and support services for Burlingame originate from the Police Department's headquarters. Currently, the Police Department employs 37 sworn officers, including 27 Officers, six Sergeants, two Lieutenants, one Captain, and the Chief of Police. The Department has four patrol teams consisting of one Sergeant and six Officers who rotate through the City's three patrol beats on a weekly basis, and a traffic bureau consisting of one Sergeant and two Officers. Schools There are two school districts within the City of Burlingame: the Burlingame School District and the San Mateo Union High School District. The Burlingame School District serves students in grades K-8 from FirstCarbon Solutions 117 YAPublicatians\Client(PN-1N(\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMNDA— Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration seven schools: Franklin Elementary School, Hoover Elementary School, Lincoln Elementary School, McKinley Elementary School, Roosevelt Elementary School, Washington Elementary School, and Burlingame Intermediate School. The San Mateo Union High School District serves students in grades 9-12 from nine schools: • Aragon High School • Peninsula High School • Burlingame High School • San Mateo High School • Capuchino High School • San Mateo Middle College High School • Hillsdale High School • Adult School/Smart Center • Mills High School According to the Department of Education, the Burlingame School District served approximately 3,410 students during the 2016-17 academic year. The San Mateo Union High School District served approximately 9,104 students during the academic year of 2016-17. Burlingame High School is the closest school to the project site. Park Facilities The City of Burlingame's Parks and Recreation Department manages 22 facilities: • Alpine Playground • Bayside Fields • Bayside Dog Exercise Park • Community Garden at Bayside Fields • Cuernavaca Park • Heritage Park • "J" Lot Playground • Laguna Park • Mills Canyon Wildlife Area • Murray Field • Paloma Playground • Pershing Park • Ray Park • Shorebird Sanctuary Natural Marsh • Trenton Playground • Victoria Park • Village Park • Washington Park • Bocce Ball Courts • Burlingame Golf Center • Burlingame Aquatic Center • Tennis Courts Of these, Alpine Playground, which is located approximately 980 feet to the northwest at the corner of Alpine and Carolan Avenues, is closest to the project site. Alpine Playground is a 0.1 acre neighborhood park equipped with a shaded playground and picnic area. Environmental Evaluation Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 118 FirstCarbon Solutions YAPublications\Client(PN-1N(\2803\28030D09\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 C Dr Dev 15MND.dOct 71 City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation I a) Fire protection? Less than significant impact. The project site is located approximately 0.2 mile from CCFD Fire Station 34. Station 34 is fully staffed 24 hours a day 7 days a week, with at least one captain and two firefighters. In accordance with standard city practices, the Central County Fire Department would review project plans prior to the issuance of permits to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city fire safety regulations. In addition, the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan determined that all development within the plan area would result in a less than significant impact to the CCFD and would not trigger the need to construct new or physically altered fire facilities. This project is located within the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan and is consistent with the North California Drive Commercial District land use designation. The proposed project would result in the development of a 26 unit live/work with ground floor commercial space. The space is conservatively estimated to result in approximately 60 new residents using the City's average persons per household of 2.3. However, the project's 26 units are not expected to permanently house 60 new residents because they are anticipated to be used as studios for a single occupant and/or workspaces for multiple persons. This PROJECT does not propose single or multi -family residential units that would more accurately reflect the 2.3 person per household average. This amount of population increase is accounted for in the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan as discussed in Section 2-13, Population and Housing. As a result, the project's impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant. b) Police protection? Less than significant impact. Police services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Burlingame Police Department. According to the Department of Finance, the City of Burlingame's current population is approximately 30,148 residents. Given the Burlingame Police Department currently employs 37 officers it is estimated that there are 1.23 officers per 1,000 residents. As discussed above, the project is located within the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan and is consistent with the North California Drive Commercial District land use designation. In addition, the project would not result in a significant increase in population that is not planned in the Burlingame r ? Downtown Specific Plan. As a result, impacts to police protection would be less than significant. L c) Schools? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The Burlingame School District and the San Mateo Union High School District provide public education services for the project site. These school districts are not at or near student capacity and, in accordance with district policy, would not turn away students who provide proof of residency. In addition, using the State of California housing unit yield of 0.7 student per unit this project is estimated to result in 42 new students.10 The 10 State of California Enrollment Certification/Projection, School Facility Program, Form SAB 50-01. Website: http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/opsc/Forms/SAB_50-01.pdf. Accessed 12/4/2017. FirstCarbon Solutions 119 Y:\Publicatlom\Client(PN-1N(\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030DD9 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.dou i r� City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i increase of new students from this project and the full buildout under the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan could potentially impact these school districts' ability to offer public education services. As a result, this project would be required to pay school impact fees as stated in MM PS-1. The implementation of MM PS-1 would mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. MM PS-1 The project Applicant would be responsible for paying all school impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. d) Parks? Less than significant impact. The project does not propose any new park space, but it is located approximately 980 feet from Alpine Playground. The City of Burlingame General Plan does not currently have a park acreage -to -resident ratio standard; however, there currently is 1 acre of parks for every 312 residents. The project would result in approximately 60 new residents, which would not change this ratio. In addition, the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan could result in new public parks, open spaces, and landscaped areas that would help maintain this ratio as well as accomplish the goals and policies of this plan. As a result, impacts to parks would be less than significant. e) Other public facilities? Less than significant impact. The project would create an increased demand for other public facilities such as childcare, hospitals, and libraries. However, the project is relatively small in scale, would add only 60 new residents, and is consistent with the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. In addition, new development would result in an expanded tax base that would provide support for the increased need for other public facilities. As a result, impacts to other public facilities would be less than significant. 120 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\29030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa 1 LI City of Burlingame 17 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration UI Environmental Evaluation Less than I I Significant L Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No r, Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact L15. Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ �- neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? i--; b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ❑ require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an I-1 adverse physical effect on the environment? �( Environmental Setting The City of Burlingame's Parks and Recreation Department manages 22 facilities, including Alpine r Playground, Bayside Fields, Bayside Dog Exercise Park, Community Garden at Bayside Fields, Cuernavaca Park, Heritage Park,'T Lot Playground, Laguna Park, Mills Canyon Wildlife Area, Murray Field, Paloma Playground, Pershing Park, Ray Park, Shorebird Sanctuary Natural Marsh, Trenton Playground, Victoria Park, Village Park, Washington Park, Bocce Ball Courts, Burlingame Golf Center, Burlingame Aquatic Center, and Tennis Courts. Of these, Alpine Playground, which is located at the corner of Alpine Avenue and Carolan Avenue, is closest to the project site. Alpine Playground is a small neighborhood park equipped with a playground and a picnic area. Environmental Evaluation (.' L a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than significant impact. The project is a 26 unit live/work development. It will approximately increase the population by as much as 55 persons. Although increasing population will affect existing neighborhood parks and recreational facilities, it is consistent with population growth expected in the City of Burlingame General Plan Housing Element. Additionally, the project is subject to payment of development impact fees, a portion of which applies directly to the Parks and Recreation Department, allowing Burlingame to implement public improvement, public services, and community amenities. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. First[arbon Solutions 121 Y:\Publications\Client(PN-)N(\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMNDA— i City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No impact. The project does not include, nor would it require, the construction of public recreational facilities. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None. 122 FirstCarbon Solutions Y.\PubllcaVons\Cllent(PN-)N(\2803\290300D9\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Environmental Issues 16. Transportation/Traffic Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Environmental Setting Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Potential traffic impacts were analyzed in the Transportation Analysis memorandum prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. on March 6, 2018 (Appendix H). The potential impacts of the proposed project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Burlingame and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County. The project site is located on the southeast corner of the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue intersection. The project area takes access from US 101 via Broadway and subsequently California Drive. Another major roadway within the project site vicinity is El Camino Real. El Camino Real (State Route 82), located approximately 0.36 mile southwest, is an undivided four -lane State FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\CH,,t(PN-JN)\2803\26030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa 123 i Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation City of Burlingame 619-61S California Drive Development Project F7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Ii Highway and Congestion Management Program (CAMP) facility according to C/CAG, which is the Congestion Management Agency in San Mateo County. Alternative Modes of Transportation Pedestrian Sidewalks are provided along the project frontage. At the signalized intersection of California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue, marked crosswalks and pedestrian signal phasing are provided. Bicycle Within the project vicinity, designated bicycle routes are provided on Oak Grove Avenue and California Drive. Residential bicycle parking would be located on the ground floor in the garage, allowing bicyclists to enter and leave the site through the garage and connect to the bike routes along Oak Grove Avenue and California Drive. Publicly accessible bike racks would be provided adjacent to the lobby area on Grove Avenue, with adequate access to both designated bike lanes. Transit SamTrans provides bus service throughout San Mateo County and connects to San Francisco to the north and Palo Alto to the South. The southbound bus stop within the project vicinity is located along the project frontage on California Drive. The northbound bus stop within the project vicinity is located on the north corner of the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue. These bus stops are within the 0.25-mile distance, which is considered an acceptable walking distance to a transit stop. Below is a summary of transit lines that currently serve the project site: e SamTrans Route 292 provides late night service on both weekdays and weekends between the Hillsdale Mall and the Transbay Terminal; headways are approximately 30 minutes. Service to SFO is also included. • SamTrans Route 46 provides service weekday mornings from California Drive and Broadway to Burlingame Intermediate School. Service is provided weekday afternoons from Burlingame Intermediate School to 1060 Carolan Avenue. Caltrain provides commuter rail service along the San Francisco Peninsula. The nearest Caltrain station to project site is the Burlingame Station, located approximately 0.36 mile southeast along California Drive. Trip Generation The anticipated trip generation for the project was estimated by applying the appropriate trip generation rates obtained from the Trip Generation Manual, 101h Edition (2017) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The average trip generation rates for "Mid -Rise Multifamily Housing" (Land Use 221) and "Shopping Center" (Land Use 820) were applied to the project. Live/work units do not operate the same as regular residential units because clients and patrons will make some trips. However, the trip to work that residents normally would make during peak hours is eliminated due to the in -unit work space. These two factors offset; thus, the trip behavior associated with live/work units was assumed to be comparable to that of a traditional residential unit. 114 First[arbon Solutions V:\Publ1cat1on5\C11ent(PN-)N(\2803\29030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa �i City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Based on project description and ITE trip generation rates, Table 18 displays estimates of trips generated. The proposed development would generate a total of 220 gross daily vehicle trips, with 11 gross trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 19 gross trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Table 18: Project Trip Generation Estimates Daily I Land Use Size : Rate Trips Rate i Proposed Project Live/Work 26 units Residential' Internal Trip — Reduction (15%)6 Subtotal AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total Rate In Out Total 5.44 141 0.36 2 7 9 0.44 7 4 11 — (2 1) — 0 (1) (1) — (1) (1) (2) 120 2 6 8 — 6 3 9 Retail Space 2.10 ksf 37.75 79 0.94 1 1 2 3.81 4 4 8 Internal Trip Reduction (15%)6 (12) — — — — — 0 1 (1) (1) Retail Pass -by Trip Reduction (25%) (20) — — — — — (1) (1) (2) Subtotal 47 1 1 2 — — 3 2 5 Total Project Trips 167 — 3 7 10 — 9 5 14 Existing Use Automobile Shop3 6.00 ksf — (15) — 0 (1) (1) — (1) (1) 1 (2) Single -Family 2 units 9.44 (19) 0.74 0 (1) (1) 0.99 (1) (1) (2) Residentia14 General Office 3 3.28 (10) 0.37 (1) 0 (1) 0.40 0 (1) (1) Buildings employees Total Existing Trips (44) (1) (1) (3) — (2) (3) (5) NET PROJECT TRIPS 123 — 2 5 7 — 7 2 9 _1 Notes: ksf = 1,000 square feet ' Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (Land Use 221) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017, 2 Shopping Center (Land Use 820) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. 3 Based on driveway counts conducted on January 11, 2018. Daily trips reductions are the average of the AM and PM peak -hour rate multiplied by 10. 4 Single -Family Detached Housing (Land Use 210) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. 5 General Office Building (Land Use 710) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. 6 Internal trips for the commercial use is assumed to be the same as the residential use. Internal trips were assumed to . be 15% of the primary trips. 7 Pass by trips for the retail land use was assumed to be 25% of the primary trips for the PM peak hour, based on the trip reduction factors published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (2012). FirstCarbon Solutions 115 Y:\Publications\Client(PN-1N(\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.cloa City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project r 1 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Ji Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would generate 123 new daily vehicle trips. However, the transportation memo also evaluated the study intersections using level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free -flow conditions with little to no delay, to LOS F, orjammed conditions with excessive delay. The City of Burlingame level of service standards were used to evaluate the signalized study intersections. Based on the results shown in Table 19, the change in average delay at the study intersections was minimal between the existing condition and the existing with project condition. The LOS did not change between the conditions. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Table 19: Intersection Levels of Service Existing No Project With Project j Peak Avg. Delay. Avg. Delay Intersection Hour Count Date Traffic Control ! (sec) LOS (sec) LOS Carolan Avenue and AM 5/23/17 AWSC*1 14.0 B 14.0 B Oak Grove Avenue PM 5/23/17 12.1 B 12.1 B California Drive and AM 5/23/17 Signal 20.4 C 20.5 C Oak Grove Avenue PM 5/23/17 16.0 B 16.1 B Ansel Road and Oak AM 1/11/18 TWSC2 11.2 B 11.3 B Grove Avenue PM 1/11/18 10.8 B 10.8 B El Camino Real and AM 1/11/18 Signal 11.7 B 11.7 B Oak Grove Avenue PM 1/11/18 11.0 B 11.0 B Notes: AWSC = All -Way Stop Control TWSC = Two -Way Stop Control * Because of limitations within the Synchro software, the intersection of Carolan and Oak Grove Avenue cannot be evaluated with three stop -controlled approaches and one free -flowing approach. Therefore, the study intersection was evaluated as an all -way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. 1 Average delay for an all -way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection. 2 Average delay for a two-way stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop -controlled approach. Source: Hexagon, 2018. 126 FirstCarbon Solutions V:\Publications\Cllent (PN-1N (\2803\28030009\ISMND\2803D009 Burl ingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.dov City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? r` Less than significant impact. Although the project would increase the total number of trips, it would t not decrease the LOS below acceptable levels as shown in Table 19. Based on the standards set forth by the City of Burlingame and C/CAG, the results of the intersection level of service analysis show that the proposed project would not result in a significant impact at any of the study intersections under existing and existing plus project conditions. The impact would be less than significant. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No impact. No impact would occur as the project would neither involve use of air transit, nor is it expected to cause any change in air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As part of the evaluation of site access and on -site circulation, the adequacy of the project driveway was evaluated with regard to the following: traffic volume, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, and corner sight distance. In accordance with Caltrans standards, adequate sight distance should be provided at the project driveway. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. For the driveway on Oak Grove Avenue, which has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph), the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 200 feet (based on a design speed of 30 mph). Based on the this standard, a driver exiting the driveway must be able to see 200 feet in both directions along Oak Grove Avenue in order to stop and avoid a collision with on -coming traffic. Therefore, the significance of this impact can be reduced with the implementation of MM TRANS-1. MM TRANS-1 In order to maintain adequate sight distance, on -street parking shall be prohibited on Oak Grove Avenue between the project driveway and the western neighboring driveway. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No impact. Access to the project site would be provided via a single full -access driveway on Oak Grove Avenue. The driveway will be 18 feet and will comply with City standards. However, access is available for emergency vehicles on California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue, separate from the driveway. In accordance with standard City practices, the Central County Fire Department would review project plans prior to the issuance of permits to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures are incorporated into the project. As such, adequate emergency access would be provided and no impact would occur. FirstCorbon Solutions 127 Y:\Publications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\2803DOD9 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMNDA— �.J City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration LJ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No impact. The proposed project will provide adequate pedestrian circulation on -site, as well as between the site and the surrounding pedestrian facilities. The project would remove four existing driveways along the project frontage on California Drive, and build additional sidewalk space connecting to the existing bus stop. Two transit bus stops (northbound and southbound) are located along California Drive within walking distance. The bus stops are served by SamTrans, which connects to the Palo Alto Transit Center, the Daly City BART Station, the Redwood City Caltrain Station, and San Francisco. Bike routes are available Oak Grove Avenue and California Drive. The existing transit and pedestrian facilities are anticipated to adequately accommodate the project - generated transit trips. The proposed project shall comply with the Burlingame General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan policies. The objectives of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan's Circulation and Parking Circulation chapter is for bicycles to be a viable choice for travelling to downtown and to increase pedestrian convenience and safety. As such, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. No impact would occur. 128 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client JPN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burl ingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.d,u City of Burlingame L 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 17. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ® ❑ ❑ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ® ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ® ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? Environmental Setting Wastewater Within the City of Burlingame, wastewater is gravity fed to lift stations, and then transported to the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Since the WWTP's $10 million improvement project in 2006, the plant has a designed capacity to treat 5.5 million gallons per day (mgd) during average dry weather flow. According to the City, the plant has a capacity of 16 mgd during wet weather. The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Burlingame claims the WWTP's average dry weather flow has remained fairly constant at approximately 3 to 3.5 mgd and is not expected to increase significantly in the foreseeable future. According to a recent NPDES compliance evaluation inspection report, dated March 11, 2015, the WWTP's average dry weather flow from September 2014 through November 2014 was 2.7 mgd. FirstCarbon Solutions 129 V:\Publlcatlom\Client(PN-1N(\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-62S CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa ii Li City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project r- Environmental Evaluation Initial5iudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration I, i Potable Water The SFPUC provides potable water to the entire City of Burlingame, and the water system is administered by the City's Public Works Department. Currently, the SFPUC provides water that is primarily supplied through the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. Water is conveyed into the City through various SFPUC pipelines that are connected to six metered connections throughout the City. The Bay Area Water Users Association (BAWUA) holds a water supply contract with the SFPUC, which contractually limits the SFPUC with a provision of 184 mgd. Of the SFPUC's 184 mgd, an allocation of 5.23 mgd is given to Burlingame. Solid Waste The City of Burlingame's solid waste collection, transportation, and disposal services are provided by Recology San Mateo County. The collected waste is brought to the San Carlos Transfer Station where recyclable materials are sorted and separated from the remaining solid waste, which is subsequently transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill near Half Moon Bay. The San Carlos Transfer Station is located at 225 Shoreway Road in San Carlos, California, and the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill is located at 12310 San Mateo Road in Half Moon Bay, California. Currently, a 15-year landfill agreement for the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill is in place, and will not expire until the year 2018. According to CalRecycle, the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 37.9 million cubic yards, and a maximum permitted throughput of 3,598 tons per day. It is scheduled to cease operation by 2034. Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less than significant impact. The City of Burlingame maintains the sewer system within the City's boundaries. Wastewater is collected and treated at the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) located at 1103 Airport Boulevard. The Treatment Plant is required to abide by all applicable regulations regarding wastewater treatment including those of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. According to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Burlingame, daily per capita water use was 113 gallons per day (gpd). The confirmed daily per capita water use target for 2020 is 135 gpd. Using 135 gpd as a conservative figure and assuming an on -site population of 55 persons, daily water demand would be approximately 7,425 gpd. Currently, the WWTP has a permitted average dry weatherflow capacity of 5.5 mgd. On average, the WWTP treated 2.9 mgd of wastewater in the year 2009 (at 53 percent capacity). As such, sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is available and the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Impacts would be less than significant. 130 FirstCarbon Solutions J Y:\Publications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619.625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.do 71 l l 1_7 L City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than significant impact. The SFPUC provides potable water to the entire City of Burlingame, and the BAWUA holds a water supply contract with the SFPUC. The BAWUA contractually limits the SFPUC with a provision of 184 mgd, 5.23 mgd of which is allocated to the City of Burlingame. According to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the City's water demand during 2015 was 1,283 million gallons (mg), which is approximately 3.52 mgd of potable water. The City is projected to use 1,749 mg, which is approximately 4.92 mgd by 2020. The City is not anticipated to reach an estimated gross water use of 5.19 mgd until 2035. According to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Burlingame, daily per capita water use was 113 gallons per day (gpd). The confirmed daily per capita water use target for 2020 is 135 gpd. Using 135 gpd as an conservative figure, and assuming an on -site population of 55 persons, daily water demand would be approximately 7,425 gpd. As previously indicated, the City of Burlingame is allocated 5.23 mgd but as of 2015, used less than 3.52 mgd and is projected to use 4.92 mgd by 2020. As such, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project and no expanded or new potable water facilities would be required. Since the WWTP has sufficient capacity to serve the project, no expanded or new wastewater transmission or treatment facilities would be required. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project includes some concrete planters would function as stormwater biotreatment, including the planters at the rear of the building. Along with the biotreatment planters, the project proposes the installation of walkways, entry paving, patio, and the garage driveway with pervious concrete to allow percolation of precipitation into the ground. As such, existing stormwater infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the project and no expanded or new off -site drainage facilities would be required. Impacts related to stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant with the implementation of MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less than significant impact. The project consists of 26 live/work units. As previously indicated, the r project is estimated to generate a 7,425-gpd water demand. The increase in water demand is consistent with the Burlingame Urban Water Management Plan's projected water consumption in the C-2 District, the project site's zoning designation. The Plan estimates an increase to 531 mg or approximately 1.54 mgd by 2020 to accommodate planned development. The City of Burlingame is j allocated 5.23 mgd of potable water but as of 2015 used less than 3.52 mgd and is projected to use 4.92 mgd by 2020. As such, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project and no new expanded entitlements would be needed. Impacts to water supply availability would be less than significant. I�. FirstCarbon Solutions 131 YAPubIIcatlons\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 8urlingame 619-625 CA Or Dev ISM ND.dou 71. I L Cityof Burlingame Environmental Checklist and 619-625 California Drive Development Project r l Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration I ', a e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less than significant impact. The project is estimated to generate 7,150 gpd of wastewater. Currently, the WWTP has a permitted average dry weather flow capacity of 5.5 mgd. On average, the WWTP treated 2.9 mgd of wastewater in the year 2009 (at 53 percent capacity). As such, sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is available and the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. This project would not be expected to require additional sewage transmission or treatment capacity. Impacts would be less than significant. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less than significant impact. The California Integrated Waste Management Board permits the San Carlos Transfer station to process 3,000 tons per day, and the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill has a permitted capacity of 3,598 tons per day. Solid waste would be generated by construction and operational activities of the project. Each is discussed below. Construction Waste The EPA estimates solid waste from construction of non-residential uses at 3.89 pounds per square foot. With approximately 2,100 commercial square feet, the proposed retail space would result in 8,169 pounds or 4.08 tons of construction waste. The EPA estimates solid waste from construction of residential uses at 4.38 pounds per square foot. The 26 proposed residential units would range from 957 to 1,195 square feet. Using 1,195 square feet per unit as a conservative figure, the proposed residential units would result in approximately 136,087 pounds or 68.05 tons. The total construction waste generated would be approximately 144,256 pounds or 72.13 to' M. Operational Waste According to solid waste generation estimates using standard residential waste generation rate provided by CalRecycle, 10 pounds per unit are generated per day. The project would create 26 new residential units, so the operation of the project is estimated to generate 260 pounds or 0.13 ton daily. The residential portion of the project would generate an estimated 94,900 pounds or 47.45 tons annually. According to CalRecycle, retail generates approximately 1.96 tons per employee per year. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) estimates one employee per 550 square feet for general retail. The proposed project would include approximately 2,100 square feet of commercial uses along California Drive, which could include retail activities, personal services, business services, offices (except medical and real estate), financial services, food services, and laundromats. Using these generation rates, the proposed retail space would generate approximately 14,960 pounds or 7.48 tons annually. The total operational waste generated would be approximately 109,860 pounds or 54.93 tons annually. The amount of operational waste generated by the proposed project is displayed in Table 20. 132 FirstCarbon Solutions V:\Publications\Cllent(PN-JN)\2803\280300D9\15MND\28030009 Burl ingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM NDA.. 6 City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Table 20: Operational Waste Generation Waste Generated Category Daily Annually Residential 0.13 ton 47.45 tons Retail 0.02 ton 7.48 tons Total 0.15 ton 54.93 tons Note: 1 ton = 2,000 pounds Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998; City of Burlingame, 2012. Sufficient capacity is available at the San Carlos Transfer station and the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill to serve the project's waste needs. As such, impacts would be less than significant. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than significant impact. Solid waste disposal services must follow federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to the collection of solid waste. The project would comply with all state and local waste diversion requirements, including the City of Burlingame Municipal Code Chapters 8.17 and 18.30 regarding waste collection. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None. FirstCarbon Solutions 133 Y:\Puhllcations\Client(PN-JN)\2803\26030009\ISMND\26DBDD09 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr DeY ISMND.dou L Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation Environmental Issues 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ® ❑ LE FER /1 ►� No Impact Environmental Evaluation a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As discussed in the preceding Impact Discussion sections, with the implementation of mitigation measures included in this IS/MND, the project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, including effects on animals or plants, or to eliminate historic or prehistoric resources. 134 FirstCarbon Solutions V:\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2803\29030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Cr Dev ISMND.docz r-1 u FJ :J T7 I , City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable l when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), "... the discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, the discussion need not provide as great [a level of] detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone." The discussion should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness, and it should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than on the attributes of other projects that do not contribute to the cumulative impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h) indicates that: (1) When assessing whether a cumulative effect requires an EIR, the lead agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project's incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. (2) A lead agency may determine in an initial study that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. When a project might contribute to a significant cumulative impact, but the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable through mitigation measures set forth in a mitigated negative declaration, the initial study shall briefly indicate and explain how the contribution has been rendered less than cumulatively considerable. (3) A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program t- (including, but not limited to, water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation 1 plan, natural community conservation plan, plans or regulations for the u reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected r� resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing r-- FirstCarbon Solutions YAPublicatlons\Client(PN-JN(\2803\28030009\ISMND\29030DD9 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.doa 135 7 I L Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project's incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding that the project complies with the specified plan or mitigation program addressing the cumulative problem, an EIR must be prepared for the project. (4) The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. In identifying projects that may contribute to cumulative impacts, the CEQA Guidelines allow the use of a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, producing related or cumulative impacts, including those which are outside of the control of the lead agency. All cumulative impacts with relation to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, and noise are either less than significant after mitigation has been incorporated, or less than significant and do not require mitigation. Mitigation Measures 81O-1 and 81O-2; CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3; GEO-1, GEO-2, GEO-3, and GEO-4; HYD-1 and HYD-2; and PS-1 would provide sufficient mitigation to reduce all potential impacts to levels of less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on these areas. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As described throughout this environmental checklist, the project would not result in substantial environmental effects on human beings. Mitigation measures are identified in this Initial Study to reduce potential significant impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, public services, and transportation/traffic. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that the project would not result in impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 136 FirstCarbon Solutions V:\Publl,,1I ns\Client(PN-1N(\2903\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM NDA— �1 U City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Summary of Mitigation Measures MM BI0-1 Migratory Birds and Nesting Raptors 1. If construction or tree removal is proposed during the breeding/nesting season for local avian species (typically March 1 through August 31), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds within and in the vicinity of (no less than 250 feet outside the project boundaries, where possible) the project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. One survey will be conducted 30 days prior to tree removal or construction activities. If no active nests are found, tree removal or construction activities may proceed. 2. If an active nest is located during pre -construction surveys, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest. Furthermore, construction activities shall be restricted to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned or the biologist deems disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones or alteration of the construction schedule. MM BI0-2 Special -status Bat Species 1. To reduce construction related impacts to special -status bat species, a bat survey shall be conducted between March 1 to July 31 by a qualified wildlife biologist within the year of proposed construction start and prior to ground disturbance. If no bat roosts are detected, then no further action is required. If a colony of bats is found roosting on -site, then the following mitigation will be implemented to reduce the potential disturbance: 2. If a female or maternity colony of bats are found on the project site, a wildlife _ biologist through coordination with CDFW shall determine what physical and timed buffer zones shall be employed to ensure the continued success of the -` colony. Such buffer zones may include a construction -free barrier of 200 feet r from the roost and/or the timing of the construction activities outside the U maternity roost season (after July 31 and before March 1). �. MM CUL-1 In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of lJ the find shall cease and workers should avoid altering the materials until an �! archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology has evaluated the resource. The Applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The resource shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by the qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined I FirstCarbon Solutions 137 4 J Y:\Puh1lcat1ons\C1lent(PN-1N(\2803\28030009\ISMND\280300098urlingame 619-625 CA Dr D,v ISM ND.doa I ' U �I City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Summary of Mitigation Measures Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration I significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive report complete with methods, results, and recommendations, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered resources. The report shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame, the Northwest Information Center, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as required. MM CUL-2 In the event that fossils or fossil -bearing deposits are discovered during construction activities, excavations within a 100-foot radius of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The project contractor shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction activities are allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the Applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the _ discovery. The plan shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame for review and approval prior to implementation, and the Applicant shall adhere to the -+ recommendations in the plan. MM CUL-3 In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. If during the course of project development there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken: 138 1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated FirstCarbon Solutions Y.\Publications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030D09\ISMND\28030DD9 Burlingame 619-625 CA Or Dev ISMND.doa I I J City of Burlingame 619-62S California Drive Development Project rl Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Summary of Mitigation Measures L grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. • The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American Remains: When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American Remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as rJ provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The applicant may develop a plan for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American Burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. MM GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit and during the foundation phases of construction, the project applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, by retaining a qualified geotechnical consulting firm. Subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations of borings during the Geotechnical Investigation. The geotechnical firm retained by the project applicant shall review final engineer plans as well as observe and test during the earthwork and foundation phases of construction. This would ensure recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation are properly incorporated into the project plan and development. MM GEO-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project's plans shall reflect foundations that extend deep enough to penetrate more stable soils. The project applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, by ensuring the building be supported on conventional spread footing foundation system bearing on stiff native soils or properly compacted structural fill. All continuous footings shall have a width of at least 15 inches and shall extend at least 30 inches below exterior grade or at least 24 inches below the bottom of concrete slabs -on -grade, whichever is deeper. Footings located adjacent to utility lines shall bear below a 1:1 plane extending up from the bottom edge of the utility trench. Continuous foundations shall be designed with sufficient depth and reinforcing to tolerate the estimated differential settlement. The geotechnical consulting firm retained by the applicant shall observe all footing excavations prior to the placement FirstCarbon Solutions V:\Publications\Client IPN-1N)\2803\29030009\ISMND\29030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Or Dev ISM ND.dou 139 r it City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Summary of Mitigation Measures Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration L] of reinforcing steel to confirm that suitable material has been exposed and properly cleaned. If soft or loose soil is encountered in the foundation excavations, the geotechnical consulting firm may require overexcavation and/or compactive effort or a deeper footing depth below the reinforcing steel is placed. Alternative to the spread footing foundation described above, the building may be supported on a reinforced concrete mat foundation bearing on a properly prepared and compacted soil subgrade. The mat foundation shall have a thickened perimeter edge that extends at least eight inches into the soil subgrade below the bottom of the mat or at least four inches below the base of the capillary break rock section. This should improve edge stiffness, reduce the potential for map slab dampness, and increase resistance to lateral loads imposed on the mat. The mat foundation shall be reinforced to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. It shall be designed with sufficient depth and reinforcing to be able to tolerate the estimated differential settlements. Prior to mat construction, the subgrade shall be proof -rolled to provide a smooth firm surface for mat support. Where dampness of the mat would be undesirable, a high quality membrane vapor barrier shall be installed. MM GEO-3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the structural engineer shall consult with the membrane manufacturer for the coefficient of friction to be assumed for design. Lateral loads may be resisted by base friction between the vapor barrier or damp proofing membrane shown below the mat and the supporting subgrade and by passive soil pressure acting against the sides of the mat foundations. Lateral resistance may be provided by passive soil pressure acting against the sides of foundations cast neat in footing excavations or backfilled with compacted structural fill. The upper foot of passive soil shall not be neglected where soil adjacent to the footing or mat will be landscaped or subject to softening from rainfall and/or surface runoff. MM GEO-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the building foundations shall be designed as recommended by the Geotechnical Investigation. The 30-year post -construction differential settlement due to static loads is not expected to exceed 1 inch across the proposed building. Less differential movement would be expected across a structural mat foundation. Additional differential settlement may occur as a result of liquefaction and dynamic densification caused by severe ground shaking during a major earthquake. MM HYD-1 The project applicant shall prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following: • A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season 140 First[arbon Solutions YAPublications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\2803DDD9\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMNO.d— L ;U. City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Summary of Mitigation Measures (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; • Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short- term biodegradable erosion control blankets; • Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at downstream storm drain inlets; • Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials, litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and • The post -construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. MM HYD-2 Prior to project approval, the project applicant shall prepare the appropriate documents consistent with San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) and NPDES Provisions C.3 and C.6 requirements for post - construction treatment and control of stormwater runoff from the site. Post - construction treatment measures must be designed, installed, and hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals shall identify the owner and maintenance party responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post -construction stormwater treatment measure in perpetuity. A maintenance agreement or other maintenance assurance must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a final construction inspection. MM PS-1 The project Applicant would be responsible for paying all school impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. FirstCarbon Solutions V:\Publications\Client(PN-JN)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.do 141 L" THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK r I City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration References AEI Consultants. 2015. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. August 28. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2009. Projections 2009: Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area to the Year 2035, San Mateo County p. S1. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2012. Earthquake and Hazards Information: Earthquake Liquefaction Susceptibility. Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/. Accessed August 6, 2012. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2012. Website: http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea /eqmaps/damfailure/dfpickc.html. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Flood Hazard Areas. Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov /Website/FloodZones/. Accessed August 13, 2012. Burlingame, City of. 1969. Burlingame General Plan, Scenic Roads and Highways Element. Burlingame, City of. 1973. Burlingame General Plan, Conservation Element. Burlingame, City of. 2010. Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Burlingame, City of. 2012. Waste Water Treatment Plant. Website:http://www.burlingame.org /index.aspx?page=82 Site. Accessed September 15, 2012. Burlingame, City of. 2015. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. California Department of Conservation. 2012. San Mateo County Williamson Act FY 2006/2007. Website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/SanMateo_06_07_WA.pdf. California Department of Conservation. 2016. San Mateo County Important Farmland 2014. Website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/smtl4.pdf. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2015. DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List —Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Website: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov /SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. Accessed December 27, 2017. California, State of. Department of Finance. 2015. Table E-5: Population and Housing Estimates for l Cities, Counties, and the State. May 1. Website: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research l /d e m ogra p h ic/re po rts/esti mates/e-5/2011-20/view. ph p. Central County Fire Department. 2015. Fire Stations. Website: http://www.ccfdonline.org/about- ccfd/fire-stations/. Accessed December 15, 2015. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2015. San Mateo County, California and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06081C0134E. FirstCarbon Solutions YAPubllcationACllent(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISMND.doa( 143 1 L I'1 City of Burlingame 619-615 California Drive Development Project �--1 References Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration J� Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook. August. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2018. Memorandum. March 6. Pangea Environmental Service, Inc. 2015. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. November 12. Romig Engineers. 2016. Geotechnical Investigation for the Four -Story Live/Work Building. December. San Mateo, County of. Undated. San Mateo County General Plan Mineral Resources Map. Website: http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/planning/genplan/pdf/gp/maps/gp%20mineral%20resourc es%20%2811x17%29.pdf. Accessed December 15, 2017. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region 2002-2031. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Protective Noise Levels, EPA 550/9-79-100. November. l 144 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client(PN-1N)\2903\29030009\ISMND\28030009 Burl ingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.dou iI ` I J City of Burlingame 619-625 California Drive Development Project F11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 5: LIST OF PREPARERS FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.357.2562 Fax: 925.357.2572 List ProjectDirector....................................................................................................................... Mary Bean Senior Project Manager............................................................................................... Elizabeth Johnson EnvironmentalAnalyst..................................................................................................... Chinmay Damle Environmental Analyst....................................................................................................Spencer Pignotti t_.-. Editor................................................................................................................................... Ed Livingston WordProcessor..............................................................................................................Ericka Rodriguez IGIS/Graphics................................................................................................................ Karlee McCracken i Reprographics..................................................................................................................... Octavio Perez Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. —Technical Subconsultant 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 San Jose, California 95113 i Phone: 408.971.6100 Pangea Environmental Services, Inc. —Applicant Subconsultant t 1710 Franklin Street, Suite 200 Oakland, California 94501 Phone: 510.836.3700 AEI Consultants —Applicant Subconsultant 2500 Camino Diablo Walnut Creek, California 94597 Phone: 925.746.6000 Romig Engineers, Inc. —Applicant Subconsultant 1390 El Camino Real, Second Floor San Carlos, California 94070 Phone: 650.591.5224 I FirstCarbon Solutions 145 V:\Publications\Client(PN-1N)\2803\28030009\ISMND\28030009 Burlingame 619-625 CA Dr Dev ISM ND.dou 11" 7 Lj THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK