Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR

Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR

Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR

717 Market Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94103 650-373-1200 www.panoramaenv.com City of Burlingame Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR September 2018

717 Market Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94103 650-373-1200 www.panoramaenv.com City of Burlingame Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR September 2018 Prepared for: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Prepared by: Panorama Environmental, Inc. 717 Market Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94103 650-373-1200 laurie.hietter@panoramaenv.com

  • TABLE OF CONTENTS Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR
  • September 2018 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.1 History ___ 1
    1.2 Project Revisions ___ 2
    1.3 Evaluation ___ 4
    1.4 Determination ___ 9
    1.5 References ___ 10
    List of Tables Table 1 Comparison of Project Revisions to the Approved Project . 2
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR
  • September 2018 ii This page is intentionally left blank.
  • EIR ADDENDUM Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR
  • September 2018 1 DOUGLAS AVENUE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT EIR ADDENDUM 1.1 HISTORY Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc., representing the property owner (collectively “the Applicant”), submitted an application to the City of Burlingame (City) Department of Community Development to demolish two single‐family houses and a 4‐unit apartment building on two adjacent lots, and construct a 27‐unit, 5‐story apartment building. The proposed project also includes moving a historic house from the project site and relocating it to another location in the City. The proposed project would be located on two adjacent lots at 1128 and 1132 Douglas Avenue. The historic house would be moved from 1128 Douglas Avenue to 524 Oak Grove Avenue. The existing house at the Oak Grove Avenue location would be demolished to accommodate the historic house. The two project sites are in the City of Burlingame in San Mateo County.

The Applicant revised the proposed project in response to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to reduce the number of residential units from 29 to 27, reduce the required parking, incorporate a guest and delivery parking space, and step back the front façade of the fifth floor. These changes were evaluated in the Final EIR and determined to not constitute significant new information (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)) or result in new significant impacts or a significant increase in the severity of any impacts analyzed in the Draft EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162) (City of Burlingame, 2017).

The Douglas Avenue Multi‐Family Residential Development Project EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2015062033) prepared for the proposed project was certified and the proposed project approved by the Planning Commission in April 2017. Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s action, the owner of an adjacent property filed an appeal of the Commission’s action. The Project EIR was certified and the proposed project approved by the City Council in June 2017. The Notice of Determination was circulated in June 2017.

On May 18, 2018 the Applicant submitted a request to revise several aspects of the proposed project. This Addendum will detail the requested project revisions and identify whether the revisions would result in new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162). The evaluation in Section 1.3 will identify if the scope of the certified EIR is adequate or if further CEQA documentation is needed.

  • EIR ADDENDUM Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR
  • September 2018 2 1.2 PROJECT REVISIONS The Applicant requested project revisions that range from moving the surface parking spaces to a larger underground garage to reducing the size of bedroom windows. The project revisions compared to the approved project, as analyzed in the certified EIR, are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Comparison of Project Revisions to the Approved Project Component Requirement Approved Project Project Revisions Parking and Circulation Parking  33 spaces  34 total parking spaces  12 surface spaces (1 guest/delivery space)  22 underground spaces  33 total underground parking spaces  30 of the underground spaces will be accommodated by car stackers Driveway  10'-0”  Variance from the 10’-0” requirement, for the shared driveway width adjacent to the existing Redwood tree in the front yard, to be 9’-0”  11’-0” wide shared driveway width beyond the existing Redwood tree  No need for widening driveway adjacent to existing Redwood tree due to relocation of surface parking spaces  10’-0” wide shared driveway width beyond the existing Redwood tree to allow for more landscaping Rear Back-Up Aisle -  Access from shared driveway to surface parking  Maintain a 24’-0” rear driveway back up clearance onto adjacent property Landscaping and Site Layout Rear Landscaping -  Surface parking and narrow strip of vegetation and trees along northwestern boundary of project site  Communal space (described below) and wider strip of vegetation and trees along northwestern boundary of project site Community Room -  Enclosed community room and outdoor water feature in front of the building  Enclosed community room, outdoor communal seating space, and outdoor water feature in rear of the building Lot Coverage  Maximum of 50%/7,746 sf  49.4% (7,654 sf/15,492 sf)  49.7% (7,699 sf/15,492 sf) Impervious Surface -  83% (12,801sf/15,492 sf)  49.7% (7,697 sf/15,492 sf) Front Setback Pervious Surface  Minimum 60%  39.7% (774 sf/1,952 sf) a  40.0% (781 sf/1,952 sf) a, b
  • EIR ADDENDUM Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR
  • September 2018 3 Component Requirement Approved Project Project Revisions Flow-Through Bioretention Planters  4% of impervious surface, reductions per C3 checklist  169 sf  456 sf Building Design Number of Units -  27  27 Average Unit Size  Average maximum of 1,250 sf  950 sf  948 sf Profile  City: 35', maximum, 75' with Conditional Use Permit c  2013 CBC: 60' d  Building height: 56'-10" (parapet) e  Garage floor depth: ~11’- 0” below grade  Building height: 56’-10” (parapet)  Garage floor depth: 14’-0” below grade Setbacks  Front setback: 15’ requirement, 19.9' average setback  Side setback: 7’  Rear setback: 20’  Front setback: 19’-11” f  Side setback: 11’  Rear setback: 20’  Front setback: 20’  Side setback: 11’  Rear setback: 20’ Underground Garage -  10’-0” underground garage height  14’-0” underground garage height to accommodate car stackers Balcony -  No community balconies  Community balcony at rear of floors 2 through 5 Massing -  Window system at corridors on floors 2 through 5 are flush with apartments  Window system at corridors on floors 2 through 5 is inset -  Front wall of the 5th floor is set back compared with the bottom floors  Front wall of the 5th floor is set back further, 7’-6” compared with the bottom floors Windows -  Medium sized bedroom windows  Small bedroom windows Construction Trucks -  874 trucks  991 to 1,024 trucks g Excavation Depth -  16’ h  17’ Soil Export -  6,000 cubic yards  6,651 cubic yards
  • EIR ADDENDUM Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR
  • September 2018 4 Component Requirement Approved Project Project Revisions Waste -  2,222 cubic yards  2,222 cubic yards a A variance was granted. b The plans indicate that 60% impervious surfaces are allowed, but according to the zoning code, 40% are permitted within the front setback. The 60% impervious surfaces will not require another variance since there is no increase in the impervious area with the project revisions compared to the approved project.

c Enclosures for stairways and elevators, and equipment are exempted from the height restriction as long as these features do not comprise more than 5% of the roof area and do not exceed more than 10 feet above top of parapet.

d Stairway and elevator enclosures are exempt from the height restriction. e A CUP was granted. f The Project Data summary indicates a front setback of 19'-10", but the plan drawing indicates a front setback of 19'-11". g The increase in trucks is a result of additional soil export, equipment, and construction material import. h The Final EIR considered excavation to 16’ for concrete supports, which is less excavation than for a slab floor at grade as now proposed.

Source: (DTA, 2017; DTA, 2018) 1.3 EVALUATION 1.3.1 Aesthetics Construction techniques and equipment used would be the same as those analyzed in the EIR. The project revisions would involve construction of a 5‐story building similar to the approved project. General massing and appearance of the building would be similar to the approved project. The approved mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts on scenic resources and from lighting and glare. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on aesthetics than those analyzed in the EIR.

1.3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources No change to conditions would occur that could result in an impact on agriculture or forestry resources. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on agriculture or forestry resources than those analyzed in the EIR. 1.3.3 Air Quality The project revisions would require deeper excavation and increase the quantity of soil removed during construction. A minor increase in construction materials, particularly concrete, would be needed to construct the larger underground garage. Truck trips to and from the project site would increase by up to 17 percent.

A small increase in the number of construction equipment vehicles or duration of use may be needed to complete the project in 14 months. Construction emissions analyzed in the EIR constituted less than one percent of the BAAQMD significance thresholds. The increase in truck trips and earth moving activities would result in greater criteria air pollutant emissions but would not result in a substantially greater impact. No

  • EIR ADDENDUM Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR
  • September 2018 5 change to the number or type of units constructed as part of the revised project would occur. Operational criteria air pollutant emissions would not change. The approved mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts on adjacent sensitive receptors and future residents. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on air quality than those analyzed in the EIR. 1.3.4 Biological Resources The number of protected trees that would be removed or trimmed would not change as a result of the project revisions. No changes to the impacts on nesting birds or bats would occur. The revised project would comply with the appropriate Downtown Specific Plan Conditions of Approval. The approved mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts on special‐status bats and protected trees. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on biological resources than those analyzed in the EIR.

1.3.5 Cultural Resources The excavation depth would be greater than the approved project but would not significantly increase the potential for uncovering cultural resources or human remains. The revised project would comply with the appropriate Downtown Specific Plan Conditions of Approval. The approved mitigation measure would be implemented to reduce impacts on cultural resources. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on cultural resources than those analyzed in the EIR.

1.3.6 Geology and Soils The acreage of project site disturbance would not increase, although the depth of excavation would be greater.

The 5‐story building would be generally equivalent to the building analyzed in the EIR, with a 1‐foot deeper foundation. The revised project would be required to comply with the City’s building code and associated protection measures to minimize erosion. The approved mitigation measure would be implemented to reduce the risk from unstable soil units. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on geology and soils than those analyzed in the EIR. 1.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions More soil would be exported from the project site and the number of truck trips would increase, due to the deeper excavation depth required to construct the larger underground garage.

Annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analyzed in the EIR were less than 22 percent of the BAAQMD significance threshold. The up to 17 percent increase in truck trips would not result in an exceedance of the significance threshold. No changes to the number or type of units that would be constructed are proposed as part of the revised project. Operational GHG emissions would not change. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on GHG emissions than those analyzed in the EIR.

  • EIR ADDENDUM Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR
  • September 2018 6 1.3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project revisions would involve deeper excavation, greater soil export, and potentially more dewatering. Groundwater in the area is not contaminated (Cornerstone Earth Group, 2015). Additional dewatering would not increase any hazards impacts. Excavated soil exported from the project site would be tested and handled in accordance with regulations and the approved mitigation measure. Temporary road closures and need to implement the emergency access mitigation measures would not change. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on hazards and hazardous materials than those analyzed in the EIR.

1.3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality The depth of excavation would increase, potentially resulting in more dewatering. As analyzed in the EIR, construction dewatering would be required to comply with appropriate permits to minimize impacts on water quality from discharges. The overall area disturbed during construction of the revised project would not increase compared to the approved project. Impervious surfaces would decrease from 83 percent to 50 percent of the project site and the total size of the flow‐through bioretention planters would increase by more than twice (from 169 sf to 456 sf).

Stormwater runoff and the potential for siltation of waterways would be reduced. The approved mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the impacts on water quality. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on hydrology and water quality than those analyzed in the EIR. 1.3.10 Land Use and Planning Several project site layout features would change due to project revisions. The front, rear, and side setbacks, as well as lot coverage, would comply with the zoning requirements for the R‐4 District. Another conditional use permit (CUP) for the building height would not be required since there is no increase in the building height with the project revisions compared to the approved project.

The variance to permit widening of the shared driveway adjacent to the existing Redwood tree would no longer be needed with the project revisions. Another variance for front setback impervious surfaces would not be required since there is no increase in the impervious area with the project revisions compared to the approved project. No new environmental impacts would occur. Implementation of the approved mitigation measure to reduce the shared driveway’s impact from inconsistency with the City of Burlingame’s Municipal Code would no longer be needed. The revisions resolve community concerns regarding the shared driveway.

The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on land use and planning than those analyzed in the EIR.

1.3.11 Mineral Resources No change to conditions would occur that could result in an impact on mineral resources. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on mineral resources than those analyzed in the EIR.

  • EIR ADDENDUM Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR
  • September 2018 7 1.3.12 Noise Equipment used during construction and the types of construction activities would not be significantly different than those analyzed for the approved project. Greater excavation activities would occur, but surface paving would be reduced. Construction noise would not noticeably change compared with what was analyzed for the approved project. Replacing the surface parking lot with a larger below‐ground parking garage would minimize operational noise associated with vehicles. The increased noise from car doors, alarms, and driving into and out of the project site from the proposed northwestern shared driveway would be eliminated by the project revisions. The project revisions include a communal outdoor space in the rear of the building. Noise levels from normal speech levels can be as high as 58 dBA at 1 meter (Olsen, 1998). With the ambient noise levels of 59 dBA at the project site, noise levels would attenuate to below 60 dBA at less than 4 feet away from people conversing. The outdoor communal space would be set back further (approximately 5.5 feet at the closest point) from the property line than the approved surface parking lot (approximately 2.5 feet at the closest point). Sounds from people talking are typical in a suburban environment. The inclusion of an outdoor communal space would not result in noise levels greater than 5 dBA above the existing ambient noise level of 59 dBA at the property line (City of Burlingame, 1975). Vegetation and the 6‐foot‐tall fence would further minimize the noise from future residents. The approved mitigation measures would reduce construction and operational noise impacts. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on noise than those analyzed in the EIR.

1.3.13 Population and Housing The number of workers needed to construct the revised project would be similar to the approved project, as analyzed in the EIR. The project revisions do not change the number or type of units that would be constructed. The maximum number of future residents would remain the same. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on population and housing than those analyzed in the EIR. 1.3.14 Public Services The project revisions would not change the need for public services analyzed in the EIR, as there would be no increase in the maximum number of future residents.

The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on public services than those analyzed in the EIR.

1.3.15 Recreation The project revisions include installation of communal outdoor space for residents that was not a part of the approved project. The outdoor space is within the project footprint analyzed in the EIR. The number of new units and residents would not change so there is no change to the need for recreational facilities analyzed in the EIR. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on recreation than those analyzed in the EIR.

  • EIR ADDENDUM Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR
  • September 2018 8 1.3.16 Transportation and Traffic Construction of the larger underground garage would require more soil export, construction materials, and construction debris than analyzed in the EIR. An increase of up to 17 percent more truck trips over the course of the construction period would be required to transport these materials to and from the project site. The additional truck trips would not substantially increase congestion on Douglas Avenue and nearby intersections beyond the impacts identified in the EIR. The approved mitigation measures would reduce any impacts on intersection operations. The number and type of units constructed would not change. As such, vehicle trips during operation of the project would not increase. The relocation of the surface parking spaces to the underground parking garage would eliminate any potential traffic hazards associated with ingress and egress through the 9‐foot‐wide northeastern driveway. This change is the project eliminates a community concern about the shared driveway. The approved Mitigation Measure Traffic‐2, parts a. and b. would reduce any traffic hazards impacts associated with the underground garage driveway. Mitigation Measure Traffic‐2, part c. would no longer be needed because the driveway would not be shared. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on transportation and traffic than those analyzed in the EIR.

1.3.17 Utilities and Service Systems The project revisions would require construction of a larger underground garage and deeper excavation. Additional soil and construction debris would be exported from the project site. Soil disposal could increase by up to 11 percent. It is assumed that ReThink Waste, which provides waste disposal services to the City of Burlingame, still transports waste to Ox Mountain Landfill (also referred to as Corinda Los Trancos Landfill). Ox Mountain Landfill has remaining capacity of nearly 40 percent (approximately 22 million cubic yards) (CalRecycle, 2018). Sufficient capacity remains to accommodate the increased waste disposal.

The number and type of units that would be constructed would not change. Demand for wastewater treatment facilities, water, and disposal facilities would not increase during operation of the revised project. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on utilities and services systems than those analyzed in the EIR.

1.3.18 Energy Construction of the revised project would require deeper excavation and installation of a larger underground garage. Truck trips could be expected to increase by up to 17 percent. A nominal increase in energy consumption, compared to the analysis in the EIR, could occur from additional truck trips and construction equipment needed to complete these construction activities in 14 months. As with the approved project, the minimal increase in fuel use during construction would not result in a significant energy impact. The maximum number of future residents would remain the same.

Energy consumption associated with operation of the revised project would not change. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on energy than those analyzed in the EIR.

  • EIR ADDENDUM Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR
  • September 2018 9 1.3.19 Cumulative Analysis The revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on any resource that could result in a new or greater contribution to cumulative impacts. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant cumulative impacts on any resource than those analyzed in the EIR. 1.3.20 Other CEQA Topics The project revisions would not result in a change to the zoning or land use designations of the project site. The revisions to the project would not commit future generations to significant changes in land use.

Construction and operation of the revised project would involve use of small quantities of hazardous materials, similar to the approved project. The revisions to the project would not result in a new potential for irreversible change as a result of an environmental accident. The potential would remain low. As discussed above, the underground garage would be larger and a 17 percent more truck trips would occur throughout construction compared to the approved project. A small increase in fuel use and materials used during construction would occur as a result of the project revisions. The revised project would still be relatively small and would not consume significant quantities of non‐renewable resources.

The revisions to the project would require a similar number of construction workers and the maximum number of future residents would remain the same as the approved project. The revisions to the project would not result in growth‐inducing impacts. The revisions to the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on the environment than those analyzed in the EIR. 1.4 DETERMINATION No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur as a result of the project revisions. No new substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken.

The mitigation measures and determination of significance for impacts included in the adopted EIR would continue to be valid. None of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 requiring preparation of a supplemental EIR have occurred. This addendum to the adopted EIR is an appropriate level of environmental review for the project revisions, as identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

  • EIR ADDENDUM Douglas Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development Addendum to EIR
  • September 2018 10 1.5 REFERENCES CalRecycle. (2018). Facility/Site Summary Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill ( Ox Mtn) (41‐AA‐ 0002). Retrieved from Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41‐AA‐0002/Detail/ City of Burlingame. (1975, September 15). Noise Element. General Plan. City of Burlingame. (2017, February). Douglas Avenue Multi‐Family Residential Development Project . Final EIR State Clearinghouse No. 2015062033.

Cornerstone Earth Group.

(2015, August 31). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 1128 and 1132 Douglas Avenue Burlingame, California. DTA. (2017, April 24). Site Plan. DTA. (2018, August 6). Site Plan. Olsen, W. O. (1998). Average Speech Levels and Spectra in Various Speaking/Listening Conditions: A Summary of the Pearson, Bennett & Fidell (1977) Report. American Journal of Audiology, 1059‐0889.

You can also read
Going to next pages ... Cancel