The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2014.10.14Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMTuesday, October 14, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 22, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meetinga. PC Minutes - 09.22.14 UnapprovedAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak " card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Consideration of Residential Density Bonus Ordinance - Staff Contact: Kevina. Density Bonus Ordinance Staff Report Density Bonus Ordinance Attachments Density Bonus - 10.14.14 recd after Attachments: Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/14/2014 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1205 Bernal Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in a detached garage; project includes enlarging an existing detached garage (Lori Potter, applicant and property owner; McGriff Architects, architect) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin b. 1205 Bernal Ave Staff Report 1205 Bernal Ave Attachment Attachments: 1361 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Special Permit for a reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces for a project consisting of adding on the first floor, converting the existing attached garage to habitable area and building a new detached garage (John Kloster and Laura Ayala, applicants and property owners; TRG Architects, architect) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin c. 1361 Vancouver Ave Staff Report 1361 Vancouver Ave Attachment Attachments: 1224 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Davina and Ron Drabkin, applicants and property owners; Carl Groch, architect) (86 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin d. 1224 Capuchino Ave Staff Report 1224 Capuchino Ave Attachments Attachments: 1908 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story dwelling and Special Permits for an attached garage, height, basement ceiling height, and exiting (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, designer and appliant; Scott and Brooke Hill, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit e. 1908 Easton Ave Staff Report 1908 Easton Ave Attachment Attachments: 1530 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (John Stewart, applicant and architect; Chris and Meaghan Schaefer, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin f. 1530 Burlingame Ave Staff Report 1530 Burlingame Ave Attachment 1530 Burlingame Ave Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Ave Historic Resource Part I.pdf 1530 Burlingame Ave Historic Resource Part II.pdf Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/14/2014 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 325 Chapin Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new attached garage (Nick Rogers, applicant and property owner; Chris Spaulding, architect) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin g. 325 Chapin Ave Staff Report.pdf 325 Chapin Ln Attachment.pdf 325 Chapin Ave Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study.pdf 325 Chapin Ln Historic Resource Study Part I.pdf 325 Chapin Ln Hstoric Resource Study Part II.pdf Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 1548 Meadow Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single -family dwelling (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, designer and applicant; Barrett and Aimee Foster, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 1548 Meadow Ln Staff Report 1548 MeadowLn Attachment 1548 Meadow Ln - 10.14.14 recd after 1 Attachments: 14 Stanley Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Variance for Lot Coverage for a first floor addition that qualifies as substantial construction (Samuel Sinnott, architect and applicant; Christy and Jesse Lindeman, property owners) (82 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit b. 14 Stanley Rd Staff Report 14 Stanley Rd Attachment Attachments: 770 Walnut Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review and Special Permits for an attached garage and basement ceiling height for a new two -story single family dwelling and attached garage (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Jonathan and Tamara Miller, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin c. 770 Walnut Ave Staff Report 770 Walnut Ave Attachment 770 Walnut Ave - 10.14.14 recd after 1 Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/14/2014 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1548 Los Montes Drive, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for construction of a new single -family dwelling and attached garage (Farnaz Khadiv, applicant and designer; Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, property owners) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin d. 1548 Los Montes Dr Staff Report 1548 Los Montes Drive Attachment 1548 Los Montes Dr - 10.14.14 recd after 1 1548 Los Montes Dr - 10.14.14 recd after 1 Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting October 6, 2014 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on October 14, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on October 24, 2014, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/14/2014 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 22, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER The September 22, 2014 Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Bandrapalli. 2. ROLL CALL Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Terrones, and GumPresent6 - SargentAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.September 8, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to approve the minutes of September 8, 2014 with the following changes: >Page 3; Agenda Item 8(b) - 2829 Rivera Drive; Commission comments/questions: change "supports" to "support". >Page 3; Agenda Item 8(b) - 2829 Rivera Drive; Commission comments/questions; response by Roberts, add: "Also, the new structure will be below the height of the existing roofline of the existing house." >Page 7; immediately prior to Director Reports, add: Commissioner Yie left the meeting at 8:51 p.m. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve as amended; it passed by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke regarding 1600 Trousdale Drive: >Indicated that she was not advocating below -market housing. Wants everything but the memory care units to be counted towards inclusionary units in Burlingame. >Is supportive of the project. 6. STUDY ITEMS Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no Study Items to consider. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items to consider. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Consideration of Residential Density Bonus Ordinance Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. He also suggested that following the public hearing and discussion, the matter should be continued to the October 14, 2013 regular meeting to permit completion of the CEQA documentation and preparation of responses to any questions raised during the public hearing. Commission comments/questions: >With respect to mandated parking incentive; does this mean at any level of affordability the standards automatically are applied? (Gardiner - City is not obligated to approve unless specifically requested by the applicant.) >Requested explanation of the opportunity to apply for a waiver of development standards. (Gardiner - not clarified in State law, but does require the applicant to demonstrate that the incentive is needed to make the project viable.) >Does the ordinance apply to both rental and ownership units? (Gardiner - yes.) >May wish to consider providing relief from upper floor setbacks as an additional incentive; this can be challenging in designing a building. (Kane - can't use the local process to work around the density bonus provisions.) >Perhaps consider driveway width deviation as an incentive. >With respect to consistent standards of construction materials, could consider different, less costly materials? (Gardiner - will review.) >Are there any incentives to entice applicants to go past 30-years of affordability? (Gardiner - nothing in the State law that he is aware of. Depending upon the financing mechanism, there could be specific requirements for greater terms of affordability. The City could impose something greater than required by State law.) >How will the new provisions affect projects currently in the pipeline of review? (Gardiner - projects that are in the pipeline are subject to the standards in place at the time of application. A project could be withdrawn and resubmitted under the new provisions.) >Not a huge fan of the increase in height as an incentive. Is there an ability in R -4 zones to permit an increased density, rather than an increased height? (Gardiner - possibly, but is likely more of an item that should be explored as part of the General Plan update. The lack of an upper density limit for R -4 has created challenges in complying with the State density bonus law.) >Is the program set up to allow a developer to come in with a 35-foot height limit and no affordable units, but could still apply for a conditional use permit for greater height? (Gardiner - there are specific conditional use permit findings that would be required for granting the greater height. With additional height for providing affordable units, the applicant is provided one less item of uncertainty by providing the additional height as an incentive; not as discretionary.) >What kinds of relief from development standards could be requested in order to make a project feasible? (Gardiner - would be something that is "off the menu" that the applicant can demonstrate is necessary to make the project feasible. Kane - likely intentionally open -ended in State law. Can allow flexibility in instances where the standards may unduly restrict the ability to provide multi -family housing. Must make the case that the request is necessary to allow development.) >Would it be possible to provide an overlay for parking that permits consideration of proximity to transit as a point to consider in reducing required parking? (Gardiner - can look at other parking options that could be considered as a part of the menu of choices.) Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Public comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Chair Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the item until the October 14, 2014 regular meeting. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum6 - Absent:Sargent1 - b.463 Cumberland Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Una Kinsella, architect and applicant; Brian and Barbara Kott, property owners) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin There were no ex-parte communications. All Commissioners had visited the site. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. Commission questions/comments: >Is there any way for the item to be considered as an FYI? (Hurin - because there was an increase in square footage had to come back as an amendment.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Brian and Barbara Kott represented the applicant. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the application with conditions. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum6 - Absent:Sargent1 - c.1600 Trousdale Drive, zoned TW – Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits and Amendments to the TW Zoning Regulations for construction of a new 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility (Joel I. Roos, Pacific Union Development Co ., applicant; Gabriel Fonseca, SmithGroupJJR, architect; Peninsula Healthcare District, property owner) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissoner Loftis indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8(c) - 1600 Trousdale Drive, as he is a former employee of the architectural firm that Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes prepared the project plans. He left the City Council Chambers. Commissioners Yie, DeMartini and Bandrapalli noted that they had met with the project applicant and /or corresponded via e-mail. All Commissioners had visited the property. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. Commission questions/comments: >Is the parking requirement for a residential facility similar to that for purely residential projects, or are they different for projects that include bundled services? (Hurin - described the different methods of parking for pure residential projects versus assisted living facilities. Meeker - noted that in the past, parking for assisted living facilities has been determined based upon parking analyses since the Zoning Ordinance doesn't specifically address the use.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Lawrence Cappel, Peninsula Health Care District; Werner Maassen, Smith Group JJR; Joel Roos, Project Manager; and Todd Murch, Eskaton; represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments/questions: >Why was the stone base changed? The current proposal is a bit dated; the prior material was a bit more modern. (Maassen - were attempting to find something with a richer finish.) >With respect to the "Gettysburg" grey color on the lower portion of the building; asked if that color carries throughout the base of the building? Be certain that the texture follows through in construction . (Maassen - yes, it will.) >Is the parking in the garage intended to accomodate the entire project? (Maassen - yes.) There is a gate at the bottom of the ramp; how will visitors access the parking? (Maassen - there will be a card reader and intercom to permit access.) >The parking study concluded that the parking supply is sufficient for the project? (Roos - yes. Looked at other Eskaton projects and past experience to determine the appropriate parking standard . Memory care patients are not included in the parking equation. There are twenty -five works, not all drive. Fehr and Peers felt that the spaces were adequate.) >Does Eskaton have a local hiring program? (Murch - encourage hiring locals.) >Will there be an effort to apply for the loading zone along Trousdale? (Roos - will be seeking a loading zone.) >Has there been any outreach to the American Red Cross and the Monks to discuss impacts? (Roos - have been several outreach efforts over the past year.) >In looking at the incremental impact from the existing building to the new building, considered the maximum potential of the existing building? (Paul ?, Fehr and Peers - noted that the increment is small enough that there will not be a significant impact.) >What is the reasoning for having the courtyard on the north side of the building? (Maassen - a lot of seniors don't like to be in the sun, but may like natural daylight. Materials will provide a lot of reflective light. Roos - also considered prevailing winds and protection of patients. Maassen - many of the common areas and activity rooms face to the exterior of the project, not to the north.) >What happened to the green roof opportunity? (Roos - could be considered in the future for an SFO outlook, though not in the current budget. May be built out over time.) >With respect to water harvesting, is this being done with the exception of the foundation? Is the plan to harvest all water on the site? (Roos - when the geotech studies were completed, found that there was no groundwater on the northwest. Not seeing much of a need to pump water out of the area. Some of the water that is harvested will be used for purposes in the building.) >Have described the EFAS as stucco; has there been any study of using true stucco? (Maassen - waterproofing issues with EFAS have been resolved. Provides insulation benefits. Is a fundamental part of the efforts to make the wall assemblies meet Title 24. The appearance is a matter of craftsmanship.) Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Noted the chain link fence to be placed on two sides of the property to serve as a space for vegetation to grow. Is hoping that another material could be used other than a chain link fence. (Roos - have evaluated alternatives. Wood will not last over time. Once the vegetation grows on the fence, it will work well. Has been used in other projects with fast-growing materials.) >Is construction planned on Sundays? (Roos - typically not done due to union requirements. May be done periodically, but not with a full work force.) >Likes what has been done to the design on the street faces. His issues have related to the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Believes the design has been developed in a manner that it does appear like a mixed -use project, but doesn't imagine anything doing well as a retail use on the ground floor. >Still has a concern regarding floors three through six, comparing the last design to the current design; not certain that there is much of a difference. if the building is painted another color in the future, could affect the residential appearance of the building. What specific changes have been made? (Maassen - are subtle changes, have modified where the wood is installed and introduced a different window type - the windows have a heavier vertical bar. The balconies are more transparent than before - this is a nicer effect. The biggest change is the color.) >Placing the wood on the balcony is a noticeable change - this will not likely be painted. >Agrees that the proposed new stone material does appear somewhat dated. Believes that the prior material that was proposed would work. (Maassen - were trying for a warmer, more tactile finish. Will look at reverting to the prior material.) >On the west elevation, the glazing of the windows; why were the windows designed so narrow? (Maassen - limited openings because the walls are sheer walls. The sheer walls are inboard on the east elevation.) >Feels that the composition of solid materials and voids (windows) works well on the west elevation. >What happens with the entry statement when the street trees on Trousdale Drive are fully grown? (Roos - the move to a deciduous tree in planters will limit the height to a maximu of 40-feet. The trees will grow to the roughly the mid -height of the building.) Could the trees flanking the entry be of a smaller scale? (Meeker - could request that the City Arborist consider smaller scale trees at the location.) >Will artificial plant materials be plced on the third floor above the entry? (Maassen - yes.) >Ensure that any large trucks delivering to the facility does not occur during high school traffic times . (Roos - Magnolia is the primary truck entrance.) >Likes the design; the cornice feature enhanced the design. Public comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Could there be an issue with having smaller trees at the entry with an odd number of trees? (Hurin - suspects that as the trees grow, the difference will not be noticed.) Terrones, Yie to consider a smaller species tree flanking the entry (5-0-1-1) Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to recommend to the City Council the trees flanking the Trousdale Drive entry to the building be of a smaller scale. Chair Bandapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Nayes: Recused: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to recomend approval Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of the project to the City Council. Chsir Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Terrones, and Gum5 - Absent:Sargent1 - Recused:Loftis1 - d.835 Airport Bl (DoubleTree), 1755 Bayshore Hwy (Hampton Inn), 765 Airport Bl (Hilton Garden Inn), 600 Airport Bl (Hilton), 1333 Bayshore Hwy (Hyatt Regency), 777 Airport Bl (Red Roof Inn), 1800 Bayshore Hwy (Marriott Waterfront), various zoning classifications - Amendments of the conditional use permits for various hotels on the City's Bayfront to eliminate conditions requiring City approval of parking charges for patrons (various property owners) (92 noticed) Staff Contact: William Meeker Commissioner Loftis returned to the dais. Commissioner Yie indicated that she had not visited the properties; all other Commissioners had done so. Community Development Director presented the staff report, noting that the request was City-initiated. Planning Commission comments/questions: >Why not just make a blanket change so that no hotel would need to have this type of condition? (Meeker - noted that only seven of the twelve conditions have such a condition. Some of the remaining hotels do charge, but are not required to have their rates approved by the Commission. Feels that the Zoning Ordinance is not necessarily internally consistent.) >Future hotel applicants will not have this condition imposed in the future? (Meeker - correct. The conditions may have originally been imposed due to conerns about on -street parking; though the hotels have more than adequate parking.) >Is there a reason why the code provision prohibiting charging for parking cannot be eliminated? (Meeker - can't be done at this hearing, but likely warrants an amendment to the code. The provision was likely created to ensure that parking for smaller scale commercial uses is not subject to charges . Kane - need to take a global look at parking charges since the City can collect revenue under certain circumstances. There may be a couple of ordinance changes needed to correct the matter. Meeker - would likely link an amendment to a particular proposal; is hesitant to begin making amendments to the current Zoning Ordinance given that following the General Plan update, it will be replaced with a new ordinance.) >Noted that some of the signs near the Marriott Waterfront Hotel indicated that approval from the front desk is required for parking in that parking lot next to the waterfront access. (Meeker - that is a condition unique to that hotel. It will not be affected by the proposed amendments.) >Would the City have the ability to reconsider the matter if people start using the street for parking rather than the parking lots? (Meeker - is always open to reconsideration by the Planning Commission if this is observed.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Public comments: Doug Masuda, Hyatt Regency San Francisco Airport and Harry Anginen , Director of Finance at the Hilton, spoke: >Support the changes to the conditional use permits as suggested. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >None. to approve Action Item . Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY There were no Design Review Study items. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.Commission Communications There were no Commission communications. b.City Council Regular Meeting - October 20, 2014 There were no actions to report from the September 15, 2014 City Council meeting. c.FYI: 1510 La Mesa Lane – Review of revised plans for a previously approved Design Review Project. Accepted. d.FYI: 1517 Chapin Avenue – Review of clarifications to landscaping for a previously approved Design Review Project. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from voting on this matter due to an existing business relationship with the applicant. Accepted (with Commissioner Terrones recused) 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at Meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on September 22, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on October 2, 2014, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Exempt Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. Any future project proposing to utilize the provisions of State law and this Ordinance would be subj ect to additional environmental review to address traffic, public facilities, archaeological issues, biological issues, etc. BACKGROUND State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915, requires local governments to provide density bonuses and other incentives to developers of affordable housing who commit to providing a certain percentage of dwelling units to persons whose income do not exceed specific thresholds. Cities also must provide bonuses to certain developers of senior housing developments, and in response to certain donations of land and the inclusion of childcare centers in some developments. Essentially, state density bonus law establishes that a residential project of five or more units that provides affordable or senior housing at specific affordability levels may be eligible for:  a “density bonus” to allow more dwelling units than otherwise allowed on the site by the applicable General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning;  use of density bonus parking standards;  incentives reducing site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural requirements that result in financially sufficient and actual cost reductions;  waiver of development standards that would otherwise make the increased density physically impossible to construct;  an additional density bonus if a childcare facility is provided. The density bonus may be approved only in conjunction with a development permit (i.e., tentative map, parcel map, use permit or design review). Under State law, a jurisdiction must provide a density bonus, and incentives will be granted at the applicant’s request based on specific criteria. The amount of the density bonus is set on a sliding scale. Burlingame’s current Housing Element was adopted in 2010. A draft of the updated 2015-2023 Housing Element is currently under review by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). It includes the following implementation programs related to density bonuses: Program H(C-2) - Provide incentives for developers to include affordable units in new residential projects. 1. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to comply with local and state legislative requirements Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 2 2. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance to accommodate a Low-Income component of required affordable housing 3. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance to encourage smaller unit sizes (i.e. studio, SROs, one- and two-bedroom units). 4. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance to extend the affordability time restrictions. 5. Amend the zoning code to provide incentives to developers who provide additional affordable units and/or serve a broader range of income levels than that required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or state density bonus requirements, such as reduced parking requirements, increased height limits, reduced landscaping requirements, flexible setback requirements and reduced fees. The Density Bonus Ordinance must be adopted prior to final certification of the 2015-2023 Housing Element in January 2015. Additional background and discussion of the Density Bonus Ordinance is provided in the staff report provided for the September 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. That report is provided as an attachment; the remainder of this report provides follow-up analysis to comments made by commissioners in the review of the draft ordinance at its September 22nd meeting. DISCUSSION At its September 22, 2014 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Density Bonus Ordinance, conducted a public hearing, and provided suggestions for changes to be considered to the proposed draft ordinance. Staff has provided follow-up to the suggestions and comments: 1. As an additional incentive option, allow relief to upper-floor step-back requirements. Section 25.63.040(c) of the draft density bonus ordinance includes pre-defined incentives to be offered for projects providing affordable units in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance. An additional incentive suggested was to allow relief to the upper-floor step-back standards in the R- 3 and R-4 districts. The R-3 and R-4 Districts require side setbacks to increased one foot for each floor above the first floor. The intent is to provide an incrementally greater amount light and air as a building becomes taller, as well as to reduce the perception of bulk and mass of taller buildings. However stepping back exterior walls can be inefficient structurally, which could add to construction costs. The standard pre-dates the implementation of design review for multi-family residential projects, so aesthetic considerations are now addressed through review by the Planning Commission rather than the shape of building envelope alone. Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 3 Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend relief to the upper-floor step-back requirements, it could add an incentive to 25.63.040(c) that would allow an applicant to waive the requirement that side setbacks be increased one foot for each floor above the first floor (per 25.28.075(e) and 25.29.075(f)). 2. As an additional incentive option, allow less costly interior finishes on affordable units. Typically the Planning Commission does not review or regulate interior finishes of projects. However, the existing Inclusionary Housing regulations in Code Section 25.63.040(b) state that the design and construction of the affordable dwelling units shall be consistent with the total project development in terms of appearance, construction materials, unit layout, and finished quality (emphasis added). While the Draft Density Bonus Ordinance presented to the Planning Commission at its September 22, 2014 meeting proposed retaining these standards (as well as adding additional standards), given that the City does not typically regulate interior finishes the standard in the draft ordinance has been modified to read: 25.63.030 (c) Design. Restricted affordable units shall be built on-site and be dispersed within the development. The number of bedrooms of the restricted affordable units shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix of the non-restricted units in the development; except that the applicant may include a higher proportion of restricted affordable units with more bedrooms. The design and construction of the affordable dwelling units shall be consistent with general plan standards; compatible with the design, unit layout, and construction of the total project development in terms of appearance, exterior construction materials, and unit layout, and finished quality and conform to general plan standards; and consistent with any affordable residential development standards that may be prepared by the City. 3. As an additional incentive option, allow a further reduction in parking for projects near transit. State Density Bonus Law recognizes that parking can represent a substantial construction cost, particularly for buildings with structured or underground parking. The reduced parking standards provided through the legislation are intended to lower construction costs and increase feasibility for projects that include affordable units. As discussed in the September 22, 2014 Planning Commission staff report, the maximum parking requirements set forth by the State Density Bonus law are lower than the citywide multifamily parking standards in the Burlingame Municipal Code, but in some instances are slightly higher than the transit-oriented standards in the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan: Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 4 Table 1: Density Bonus Parking Standards Compared to Burlingame Municipal Code Type of Use Density Bonus Standards Burlingame Municipal Code Standards except for Downtown Specific Plan Area Downtown Specific Plan Area West of Rail Corridor Downtown Specific Plan Area East of Rail Corridor Studio 1 space/unit 1.5 space/unit 1 space/unit 1 space/unit 1 Bedroom 1 space/unit 1.5 space/unit 1 space/unit 1.5 space/unit 2 Bedroom 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 1.5 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 3 Bedroom 2 spaces/unit 2.5 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit Guest parking None required Apartments: none required None required None required Condominiums: 1 for 2-4 units 2 for 5-15 units 3 for 15 or more units For the purposes of identifying areas that are convenient to transit, Burlingame has a mapped “Priority Development Area” (PDA) that approximately corresponds to one-quarter mile from a major rail station (Downtown Burlingame and Millbrae Intermodal) or major transit corridor (El Camino Real with 15-minute headway express bus service). As an additional option for applicants to consider, the Density Bonus Ordinance could offer an incentive that would allow projects with affordable units located within the PDA boundaries to have lower parking ratios. The existing Downtown Specific Plan regulations could provide guidance. A map of the Burlingame PDA is included as an attachment. 4. As an additional incentive option, allow a further reduction in parking for projects that have car sharing available. Car sharing has merit as a tool for potentially reducing vehicle demand. Some households may need the use of one vehicle on a daily basis, but only occasionally need a second vehicle. In these instances, the availability of a car share service within the project (such as Zipcar or City CarShare) could allow some households to forego a second car. Other households may find they do not need a vehicle for their work commute, but occasionally need access to a vehicle for errands or outings, so could utilize a car share vehicle for those occasions. However there would be two challenges to utilizing car sharing as a means for reducing parking requirements in conjunction with affordable housing:  Car sharing services are not inexpensive. Their cost is equivalent or even slightly more expensive than a traditional car rental. They are distinguished by their convenience and Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 5 ease of use rather than cost. While lower-income households would benefit from the convenience, conversely they might be deterred by the cost of the service.  Relying on a third-party arrangement such as a contracted car sharing service could be a problem if the third-party provider were to discontinue the service at some point in the future. Problems could arise if another car sharing provider could not be arranged, but the project had received development bonuses assuming the car sharing would be available. 5. Require that the units be affordable for longer than thirty years, including consideration that they be affordable for perpetuity. The current Chapter 25.63 Inclusionary Housing regulations require units to remain restricted and affordable for a minimum period of ten years. The draft Density Bonus Ordinance requires thirty years, consistent with State Density Bonus Law. Thirty years would be more consistent with other San Mateo County municipalities, which have requirements ranging from thirty years (Belmont, Brisbane, Foster City, Portola Valley, Redwood City) to ninety- nine years (East Palo Alto). While thirty years would be the minimum term for units to remain restricted and affordable, some construction or mortgage financing programs, mortgage insurance programs, or rental subsidy programs may require longer durations. Legally it would not be possible to require that affordability be maintained in perpetuity. California Probate Code Section 21205 establishes that a nonvested property interest is invalid unless it is certain to vest or terminate within ninety years after its creation. Instances exceeding ninety years such as East Palo Alto would have only been allowed under redevelopment authority, but Burlingame did not have an active redevelopment authority. A consideration could be to allow additional development concessions and incentives if affordability is maintained longer than 30 years. For example, the current Inclusionary Housing regulations allow an applicant to request an additional incentive if affordability of the units is extended from ten years to thirty years, and further allows parking reductions if affordability is extended to thirty years. The Planning Commission could propose allowing an additional number of incentives beyond those specified in Section 25.63.040(b) of the draft ordinance. 6. Establish a maximum density for the R-4 District. Density bonuses would be applicable to the maximum residential density of the respective General Plan designation for a given property. Most residential areas within the City of Burlingame have either a designated range of residential densities and/or a maximum residential density. The exception is the High Density Land Use/R-4 Zoning District, which is designated on the General Plan Land Use map as “51 plus dwelling units per acre.” Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 6 Any changes to land use densities would require a General Plan Amendment and are therefore beyond the scope of the Density Bonus Ordinance. The General Plan Update would be a more appropriate venue for considering such land use changes. Such an exercise would include studying appropriate ranges of densities (including maximum densities) based on community objectives, potential impacts on other land uses and services, and potential environmental impacts. The General Plan Update is scheduled to commence later this year or early 2015, and take approximately two years to complete. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should review the draft Residential Density Bonus Ordinance, conduct a public hearing, and consider public input. At the end of the meeting, the Planning Commission should: 1. Provide direction about any further changes to be made to the proposed draft ordinance, including those reviewed in this staff report; and 2. Take action on a recommendation to the City Council. Kevin Gardiner Planning Manager Attachments:  Draft Density Bonus Ordinance  Planning Commission Staff Report – September 22, 2014  Exhibit 1: Burlingame Multifamily Project References  Exhibit 2: Multifamily Residential Projects with Planning Approvals since adoption of Code Chapter 25.63  Burlingame Priority Development Area (PDA) map  Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)  Notice of Public Hearing – Published in the San Mateo Daily Journal September 12, 2014 1 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.63 TO THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW REQUIRING INCENTIVES OR CONCESSIONS FOR QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENTS WHEREAS State Law requires the adoption of a Density Bonus Ordinance, under Government Code §§65915-65919; and WHEREAS the City’s existing Inclusionary Housing provisions require modification to reflect governing state law and account for local conditions; and WHEREAS current regulations should be updated to reflect governing state law and account for local conditions; and WHEREAS efficiency and transparency are served by combining the objectives served by the existing Inclusionary Housing provisions into the required Density Bonus Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby ordain as follows: DIVISION 1: Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.63 is repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following: 25.63.010 Purpose. (a) It is the City Council’s intent that this chapter be implemented in a manner consistent with the provisions set forth in Government Code §§65915-65919, hereinafter the “density bonus law.” This chapter creates procedures for identifying qualifying developments, and the submission, review, and granting of incentives and concessions consistent with state law. (b) All applicable provisions of the density bonus law are hereby incorporated by reference and shall be the default law unless otherwise provided by this chapter. (c) This chapter shall not abrogate the any other requirements set forth by federal, state, or local law, including but not limited to California Environmental Quality Act requirements and Burlingame Municipal Code. 25.63.015 Definitions. The following terms shall have the following meanings when used in this chapter. All other terms shall be interpreted consistent with the meaning set forth in the density bonus law. (a) “Affordable units” shall collectively mean units qualifying as “very low,” “lower,” and “moderate” income units as used in this chapter and in the density bonus law. (b) “Applicant” shall mean any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, entity, or any combination thereof, who seeks a density bonus and/or concessions as defined in this section. (c) “Child care facility” shall mean a child day care facility other than a family day care home, including, but not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and 2 schoolage child care centers. (d) “Concessions” shall be interchangeable with “incentives,” unless otherwise indicated. The meaning shall be consistent with Government Code §65915(k). (e) “Density bonus” shall mean a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density as of the date of the application. (f) “Development” shall have the meaning set forth in Government Code §65915(i). (g) “Incentives” shall be interchangeable with “concessions,” unless otherwise indicated. The meaning shall be consistent with Government Code §65915(k). (h) “Lower income” shall have the same definition set forth in Health and Safety Code §50079.5. (i) “Moderate income” shall have the same definition set forth in Health and Safety Code §50093. (j) “Specific adverse impact” shall have the same definition as set forth in Government Code §65589.5(d)(2). (k) “Very low income” shall have the same definition as set forth in Health and Safety Code §50105. 25.63.020 Density Bonus. This section describes the density bonuses that will be provided, at the request of an applicant, when that applicant provides restricted affordable units as described below. (a) The city shall grant a 20 percent (20%) density bonus when an applicant for a development of five (5) or more dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct at least any one of the following in accordance with the requirements of this Section and Government Code Section 65915: (1) At least 10 percent (10%) of the total dwelling units of the development as restricted affordable units affordable to lower income households. For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted lower income units, a development will receive an additional one and one-half percent (1.5%) density bonus up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the maximum residential density; or (2) At least five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units of the development as restricted affordable units affordable to very low income households. For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted very low income units, a development will receive an additional two and one-half percent (2.5%) density bonus up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the maximum residential density; or (3) A senior citizen housing development; or (4) A qualifying mobilehome park. (b) The city shall grant a five percent (5%) density bonus when an applicant for a development of five (5) or more additional dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct, in accordance with the requirements of this Section and Government Code Section 65915, at least 10 percent (10%) of the total dwelling units in a common interest development as defined in California Civil Code Section 4100 for moderate income households, provided that all dwelling units in the development are offered to the public for purchase. For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted moderate income units, a development will receive an additional one percent (1%) density bonus up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the maximum residential density. (c) No additional density bonus shall be authorized for a senior citizen development or qualifying mobilehome park beyond the density bonus authorized by subsection (a) of this section. (d) When calculating the number of permitted density bonus units, any fractions of units shall be rounded to the next highest number. An applicant may elect to receive a density bonus that is less than the amount permitted by this section; however, the city shall not be required to similarly reduce the number of restricted affordable units required to be dedicated pursuant to this section and Government Code Section 65915(b). (e) Each development is entitled to only one density bonus, which shall be selected by the applicant based on the percentage of very low restricted affordable units, lower income restricted affordable units, or moderate income restricted affordable units, or the development’s status as a senior citizen housing development or qualifying mobilehome park. Density bonuses from more than one category may not be combined. In no case shall a development be entitled to a 3 density bonus of more than thirty-five percent (35%). (f) The density bonus units shall not be included when determining the number of restricted affordable units required to qualify for a density bonus. When calculating the required number of restricted affordable units, any resulting decimal fraction shall be rounded to the next larger integer. (g) Any restricted affordable unit provided pursuant to a below market rate housing program adopted by the City shall be included when determining the number of restricted affordable units required to qualify for a density bonus or other entitlement under this chapter. However, the payment of a housing impact or in lieu fee shall not qualify for a density bonus or other entitlement under this chapter. (h) Certain other types of development activities are specifically eligible for a density bonus pursuant to state law: (1) A development may be eligible for a density bonus in return for land donation pursuant to the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 65915(g). (2) A condominium conversion may be eligible for a density bonus or concession pursuant to the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 65915.5. (i) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, all developments must satisfy all applicable requirements of any below market rate housing program adopted by the City, which may impose requirements for restricted affordable units in addition to those required to receive a density bonus or concessions. Table 1 summarizes the density bonus provisions described in this Section. Table 1: Density Bonus Summary Table Restricted Affordable Units or Category Minimum Percentage of Restricted Affordable Units Percentage of Density Bonus Granted Additional Bonus for Each 1% Increase in Restricted Affordable Units Percentage of Restricted Units Required for Maximum 35% Density Bonus Very Low Income 5% 20% 2.50% 11% Lower Income 10% 20% 1.50% 20% Moderate Income 10% 5% 1% 40% Senior Citizen Housing 100% 20% ------ ------ Qualifying Mobile Park 100% 20% ------ ------ Note: A density bonus may be selected from only one category up to a maximum of 35% of the Maximum Residential Density. 25.63.030 Development Standards for Affordable Units The affordable housing standards are as follows: (a) Concurrent Construction. The required affordable dwelling units shall be constructed concurrently with market-rate units unless both the final decision-making authority of the city and developer agree within the affordable housing agreement to an alternative schedule for development. (b) Moderate income restricted affordable units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for a minimum period of 30 years (or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program). Very low and lower restricted affordable units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for a period of 30 years for both rental and for-sale units (or a longer period of time if required by a construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program). 4 (c) Design. Restricted affordable units shall be built on-site and be dispersed within the development. The number of bedrooms of the restricted affordable units shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix of the non-restricted units in the development; except that the applicant may include a higher proportion of restricted affordable units with more bedrooms. The design and construction of the affordable dwelling units shall be consistent with general plan standards; compatible with the design, unit layout, and construction of the total project development in terms of appearance, exterior construction materials, and unit layout, and finished quality and conform to general plan standards; and consistent with any affordable residential development standards that may be prepared by the City. (d) Minimum Dwelling Unit Size. To qualify as affordable dwelling units under this chapter, the affordable dwelling units shall meet the following minimum size requirements, excluding common areas, storage units, and assigned parking areas or spaces: Type of Unit Minimum Size Studio 500 square feet One-bedroom 650 square feet Two-bedroom 800 square feet (e) A regulatory agreement, as described in Section 25.63.080, shall be made a condition of the discretionary permits for all developments pursuant to this chapter. The regulatory agreement shall be recorded as a restriction on the development. 25.63.040 Development Concessions and Incentives. (a) By Right Parking Incentives. Upon request by the applicant a development that is eligible for a Density Bonus may provide parking as provided in this subsection (a), consistent with Government Code Section 65915(p), inclusive of accessible and guest parking: (1) Zero to one bedroom unit: one on-site parking space; (2) Two to three bedroom unit: two on-site parking spaces; (3) Four or more bedroom unit: two and one-half parking spaces. (b) Other Incentives and Concessions. A development is eligible for other Concessions or Incentives as follows: % very low income units % lower income units % moderate income units 1 incentive 5 10 10 2 incentives 10 20 20 3 incentives 15 30 30 (c) In submitting a request for Concessions or Incentives, an applicant may request the specific Concessions set forth below. The following Concessions and Incentives are deemed not to have a specific adverse impact: (1) A height for structures of forty-six (46) feet in height or less without a conditional use permit; (2) Reduction of common open space in the rear yard of a residential development by up to fifty (50) percent or two hundred (200) square feet, whichever is more, without necessity of a variance, so long as no dimension of the common open space provided is less than ten (10) feet in any direction; or (3) Use of unistall parking spaces each with a clear interior measurement of eight and one- 5 half (8 1/2) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in length without necessity of a variance; or (4) Allowance of up to fifty (50) percent of the required parking as compact parking stalls as defined in Chapter 25.70, without necessity of a variance. (d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require the provision of direct financial concessions for the development, including the provision of publicly owned land by the city or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. 25.63.050 Waiver/Modification of Development Standards An applicant may apply for a waiver or modification of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this chapter. The developer must demonstrate that development standards that are requested to be waived or modified will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subsection (a) of Section 25.63.020 at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this chapter. 25.63.060 Child Care Facilities. (a) An applicant otherwise qualifying for density bonuses and/or incentives under this chapter may be eligible for the following density bonuses or incentives if they propose to construct a qualifying child care facility, consistent with §65915(h). (b) The density bonus shall be in an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal to or greater than the amount of square feet in the child care facility. (c) The incentive shall be granted if it contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child care facility. (d) The City may deny the density bonus or incentives described in this section if it finds, based on substantial evidence, that the community has adequate child care facilities. 25.63.070 Application and Review Process. (a) An application for a density bonus or incentive shall be made to the Community Development Department on forms provided by the City. The application shall include the following information: (1) A brief description of the proposed housing development, including the total number of dwelling units, affordable housing units, and density bonus units proposed. (2) The requested density bonus amount and requested incentives, if any. (3) Site plans showing the location of market-rate, density bonus, and affordable housing units. (4) Any other such information as is necessary to verify that the applicant and/or the housing development meets all requirements set forth by state and local law. (b) The application, or an incentive therein, may be wholly or partially denied for any of the following reasons: (1) The application is incomplete. (2) The application contains a material misrepresentation. (3) The incentive has an insufficient relationship to providing affordable housing. (4) The incentive has a specific, adverse impact as defined in this chapter. (5) The incentive is contrary to federal or state law. (c) The applicant may file an appeal to the City Council within 14 days of being notified of his application’s final denial. 25.63.080 Regulatory Agreement. (a) After approval of the application as detailed in §25.63.050, applicant shall enter into a regulatory agreement with the City. The terms of this agreement shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office, and reviewed and revised as appropriate by the reviewing city 6 official. This agreement shall be on a form provided by the City, and shall include the following terms: (1) The affordability of very low, lower, and moderate income housing shall be assured in a manner consistent with Government Code §65915(c)(1). (2) An equity sharing agreement pursuant to Government Code §65915(c)(2). (3) The location, dwelling unit sizes, rental cost, and number of bedrooms of the affordable units. (4) A description of any bonuses and incentives, if any, provided by the City. (5) Any other terms as required to ensure implementation and compliance with this section, and the applicable sections of the density bonus law. (b) This agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. The agreement required by this section shall be a condition of all development approvals and shall be fully executed and recorded prior to the issuance of any building or construction permit for the project in question. 7 DIVISION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. DIVISION 3: This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. MICHAEL BROWNRIGG, Mayor I, MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2014 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2014, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, City Clerk City of Burlingame Consideration of Residential Density Bonus Ordinance Meeting Date: September 22, 2014 Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should review the draft Residential Density Bonus Ordinance, conduct a public hearing, and consider public input. At the end of the meeting, the Planning Commission should: 1. Provide direction about any changes to be made to the proposed draft ordinance; and 2. Take action on a recommendation to the City Council. BACKGROUND State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915, was first enacted in 1979. The law requires local governments to provide density bonuses and other incentives to developers of affordable housing who commit to providing a certain percentage of dwelling units to persons whose income do not exceed specific thresholds. Cities also must provide bonuses to certain developers of senior housing developments, and in response to certain donations of land and the inclusion of childcare centers in some developments. Essentially, state density bonus law establishes that a residential project of five or more units that provides affordable or senior housing at specific affordability levels may be eligible for: • a “density bonus” to allow more dwelling units than otherwise allowed on the site by the applicable General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning; • use of density bonus parking standards; • incentives reducing site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural requirements that result in financially sufficient and actual cost reductions; • waiver of development standards that would otherwise make the increased density physically impossible to construct; • an additional density bonus if a childcare facility is provided. The density bonus may be approved only in conjunction with a development permit (i.e., tentative map, parcel map, use permit or design review). Under State law, a jurisdiction must provide a density bonus, and incentives will be granted at the applicant’s request based on specific criteria. The amount of the density bonus is set on a sliding scale, based on the percentage of affordable units at each income level, as shown on Table 1 on the following page: Item No. 8a Action Item Review and Recommendation to City Council Residential Density Ordinance -2- Table 1: Density Bonus Chart Affordable Unit Percentage* Very Low Income Density Bonus Low Income Density Bonus Moderate Income Density Bonus Land Donation Density Bonus Senior Housing Density Bonus 5% 20% - - - 20% 6% 22.5% - - - 20% 7% 25% - - - 20% 8% 27.5% - - - 20% 9% 30% - - - 20% 10% 32.5% 20% 5% 15% 20% 11% 35% 21.5% 6% 16% 20% 12% 35% 23% 7% 17% 20% 13% 35% 24.5% 8% 18% 20% 14% 35% 26% 9% 19% 20% 15% 35% 27.5% 10% 20% 20% 16% 35% 29% 11% 21% 20% 17% 35% 30.5% 12% 22% 20% 18% 35% 32% 13% 23% 20% 19% 35% 33.5% 14% 24% 20% 20% 35% 35% 15% 25% 20% 21% 35% 35% 16% 26% 20% 22% 35% 35% 17% 27% 20% 23% 35% 35% 18% 28% 20% 24% 35% 35% 19% 29% 20% 25% 35% 35% 20% 30% 20% 26% 35% 35% 21% 31% 20% 27% 35% 35% 22% 32% 20% 28% 35% 35% 23% 33% 20% 29% 35% 35% 24% 34% 20% 30% 35% 35% 25% 35% 20% 31% 35% 35% 26% 35% 20% 32% 35% 35% 27% 35% 20% 33% 35% 35% 28% 35% 20% 34% 35% 35% 29% 35% 20% 35% 35% 35% 30% 35% 20% 36% 35% 35% 31% 35% 20% 37% 35% 35% 32% 35% 20% 38% 35% 35% 33% 35% 20% 39% 35% 35% 34% 35% 20% 40% 35% 35% 35% 35% 20% * All density bonus calculations resulting in fractions are rounded up to the next whole number. ** Affordable unit percentage is calculated excluding units added by a density bonus. *** No affordable units are required for senior housing units to receive a density bonus. Review and Recommendation to City Council Residential Density Ordinance -3- Furthermore the State Density Bonus law provides maximum parking requirements upon the applicant’s request. Requesting these parking standards does not count as an incentive or concession. Table 2 outlines the maximum parking requirements set forth by the State Density Bonus law compared to multifamily parking standards in the Burlingame Municipal Code: Table 2: Density Bonus Parking Standards Compared to Burlingame Municipal Code Type of Use Density Bonus Standards Burlingame Municipal Code Standards except for Downtown Specific Plan Area Downtown Specific Plan Area West of Rail Corridor Downtown Specific Plan Area East of Rail Corridor Studio 1 space/unit 1.5 space/unit 1 space/unit 1 space/unit 1 Bedroom 1 space/unit 1.5 space/unit 1 space/unit 1.5 space/unit 2 Bedroom 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 1.5 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 3 Bedroom 2 spaces/unit 2.5 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit Guest parking None required Apartments: none required None required None required Condominiums: 1 for 2-4 units 2 for 5-15 units 3 for 15 or more units If a child care center is also included in the affordable or senior housing development, the local agency shall grant either an additional density bonus equal to or greater than the amount of square feet of the child care center or grant an additional incentive that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child care facility, with the following additional requirements: 1. The child care facility shall remain in operation for a period of time as long as the term of the affordable units; 2. The percentage of children from very low-, low- and moderate income-families reflects the percentage of affordable units in the development; 3. The local agency shall not be required to provide a density bonus or concession for a child care facility if it finds that the community has adequate child care facilities. Burlingame’s current Housing Element was adopted in 2010. A draft of the updated 2015-2023 Housing Element is currently under review by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). It includes the following implementation programs related to density bonuses: Program H(C-2) - Provide incentives for developers to include affordable units in new residential projects. 1. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to comply with local and state legislative requirements 2. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance to accommodate a Low-Income component of required affordable housing 3. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance to encourage smaller unit sizes (i.e. studio, SROs, one- and two-bedroom units). 4. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance to extend the affordability time restrictions. 5. Amend the zoning code to provide incentives to developers who provide additional affordable units and/or serve a broader range of income levels than that required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or state density bonus requirements, such as reduced parking requirements, increased height limits, reduced landscaping requirements, flexible setback requirements and reduced fees. Review and Recommendation to City Council Residential Density Ordinance -4- The Density Bonus Ordinance must be adopted prior to final certification of the 2015-2023 Housing Element in January 2015. DISCUSSION Relation to Chapter 25.63 Inclusionary Housing: Chapter 25.63 of the Municipal Code, adopted by the City Council in 2003, currently provides for density bonuses and affordable housing units. The provisions in the existing chapter were developed to comply with earlier versions of the State Density Bonus Law, and to respond to community objectives to provide affordable units in new developments. The proposed Density Bonus Ordinance is intended to fully replace the existing Chapter 25.63 Inclusionary Housing chapter. The proposed ordinance combines most of the elements of the existing Chapter 25.63 Inclusionary Housing together with the most recent requirements of the State Density Bonus Law. The most significant modifications to the existing Inclusionary Housing provisions as set forth in Chapter 25.63 would be: • Affordable units would no longer be a requirement of projects; the inclusion of affordable units would be at the discretion of the applicant, in an agreement with the City for the concessions and incentives offered in the Density Bonus Ordinance. • Units affordable to Moderate Income households would be required to remain restricted and affordable for a minimum period of 30 years, rather than the current 10 years. • The list of incentives currently provided in 26.63.030(b) would be expanded to provide additional options. • Applicants would be able to apply for a waiver or modification of development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by the Density Bonus Ordinance. Application of density bonuses: Density bonuses would be applicable to the maximum residential density of the respective General Plan, Zoning, or Specific Plan designation for a given property. Most residential areas within the City of Burlingame have either a designated range of residential densities and/or a maximum residential density. The exception is the High Density Land Use/R-4 Zoning District, which is designated on the General Plan Land Use map as “51 plus dwelling units per acre.” Developments in the R-4 district would not need to request a density bonus since there is no upper density limit, but would be eligible to request concession(s) or incentive(s) provided in the Density Bonus Ordinance in exchange for building affordable units. The incentive to allow additional building height without a Conditional Use Permit currently provided in 26.63.030(b) was originally intended to provide additional floor area that would be the approximate equivalent to a unit density bonus. The height incentive is proposed to remain in the new ordinance both to provide a mechanism for a bonus in the R-4 district, as well as to provide an incentive for providing affordable units in any residential district. Incentives: Because affordable units would be an option rather than a requirement, it is important that the incentives offered be sufficient to offset the cost of providing the affordable units, and provide sufficient encouragement for developers to participate in the program. Exhibit 1 (attached) lists the multifamily residential developments approved since Chapter 25.63 was adopted in 2003, including the incentives each development utilized. Of the eight developments, five utilized increased building height and five utilized the provision of compact parking spaces (some projects utilized two incentives). No developments requested the reduction of rear yard common open space. In meeting with prospective housing development applicants, staff has found the most commonly requested incentives to be increased building height, reduced parking stall dimensions, and reduced parking ratios. The developments approved since Chapter 25.63 went into effect (as shown in Exhibit 1) would appear to support this observation. There has also been interest from some prospective developers to incorporate a uniform reduced parking stall dimension rather than a mix of standard and compact stalls. Currently a 8½’ x 18’ “unistall” option is available in the El Camino Real North (ECN) and Trousdale West (TW) zoning districts; the Density Review and Recommendation to City Council Residential Density Ordinance -5- Bonus Ordinance proposes to allow the unistall option for developments with affordable units in all multifamily districts. Reduction in parking standards for developments with affordable units is mandated by State Density Bonus law and does not count as an incentive or concession. As shown in Table 2, the maximum parking standards outlined in the state law are slightly lower than the City’s base multifamily parking standards, and are relatively comparable to those in the City’s Downtown Specific Plan area. While the State Density Bonus law also allows a developer to apply for a waiver or modification of development standards that it deems to preclude the construction of a development at the densities provided in the ordinance, there are benefits to both the community and developers to having a defined “menu” of choices as currently provided in Chapter 25.63 and proposed to be further expanded in the new ordinance. A menu of options offers predictability for both the community and applicants, and allows options to be vetted in advance. In reviewing the draft ordinance, the Planning Commission, community members, and prospective developers of affordable housing may want to suggest additional incentives in addition to or in place of those outlined in the draft ordinance. In-lieu Fees, Impact Fees and Alternate Density Bonus Approaches: Burlingame has joined with other San Mateo County jurisdictions in a nexus and financial feasibility study to consider Housing Impact Fees to assess new market rate development for the increased demand that it creates for affordable housing. The nexus study is required to determine and implement impact and in-lieu fees. The study will include a range of recommendations for fees that take a variety of considerations into account, including construction costs and project feasibility. It may also provide data to assist in developing alternative options for density bonuses such as formulas based on floor area. While all San Mateo County jurisdictions are participating in the study, the fee options will be specific to each jurisdiction, and each jurisdiction will make its own determination as to the types and amounts of fees it may adopt. The study is expected to be completed at the end of this year, and further legislative action may be taken at that time. However the City is required to enact a density bonus ordinance in the meantime. Planning Commission Direction: The Planning Commission should review the proposed Density Bonus Ordinance and provide a recommendation to the City Council. With the objective of encouraging affordable units through incentives, commissioners may want to consider additional incentives in addition to or in place of those outlined in 25.62.040 (c) of the draft ordinance. The Planning Commission should also evaluate conformity with the General Plan. Kevin Gardiner Planning Manager Attachments: Draft Density Bonus Ordinance Exhibit 1: Burlingame Multifamily Project References Exhibit 2: Multifamily Residential Projects with Planning Approvals since adoption of Code Chapter 25.63 Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Published in the San Mateo Daily Journal September 12, 2014 EXHIBIT 1: BURLINGAME MULTIFAMILY PROJECT REFERENCES 1512-1516 Floribunda Avenue Completed 2008 Total Units 9 BMR Units 1 Units per Acre 28.6 Building Height 53’-1” Incentives 50% Compact Parking 1838 Ogden Drive Completed 2012 Total Units 45 BMR Units 5 Units per Acre 49.5 Building Height 46’-0” Incentives Height, 50% Compact Parking 1226 El Camino Real Completed 2010 Total Units 9 BMR Units 1 Units per Acre 30.5 Building Height 45'-5" Incentives Height, 50% Compact Parking 1321 El Camino Real Completed 2014 (estimated) Total Units 5 BMR Units 1 Units per Acre 29.9 Building Height 42'-4" Incentives Height 904 Bayswater Avenue Completed 2014 (estimated) Total Units 6 BMR Units 1 Units per Acre 26.1 Building Height 26'-1" Incentives 50% Compact Parking 1800 Trousdale Drive Completed under construction – approved 2013 Total Units 25 BMR Units 3 Units per Acre 50 Building Height 60'-4" Incentives 50% Compact Parking 1225 Floribunda Avenue Completed under construction – approved 2013 Total Units 6 BMR Units 1 Units per Acre 31.7 Building Height 43'-0 7/8" Incentives Height 1433 Floribunda Avenue Completed approved 2014 Total Units 10 BMR Units 1 Units per Acre 45.9 Building Height 46'-0" Incentives Height EXHIBIT 2: CITY OF BURLINGAME MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH PLANNING APPROVALS SINCE ADOPTION OF MUNCIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.63 Lot Area (sq ft) Acres Units BMR Units Units/ Acre Type PC Approval Completed/ Finaled 1512-1516 Floribunda Ave 13,709 0.32 9 1 28.6 Condo 10/11/05 4/17/08 508 Peninsula Ave. 5,021 0.12 3 0 26.1 Condo 7/26/04 5/6/09 1840 Ogden Drive 38,905 0.91 45 5 49.5 Condo 7/24/06 3/1/12 1459 Oak Grove Ave 5,790 0.13 3 0 22.6 Condo 6/23/08 4/3/14 1226 El Camino Real 12,874 0.30 9 1 30.5 Condo 5/27/08 6/14/10 1321 El Camino Real 7,311 0.17 5 1 29.9 Apt 1/10/11 under constr 904 Bayswater Ave 10,000 0.23 6 1 26.1 Condo 7/23/12 under constr 1800 Trousdale Drive 21,741 0.50 25 3 50.0 Condo 3/11/13 under constr 1225 Floribunda Ave 8,223 0.19 6 1 31.7 Condo 9/9/13 under constr 1433 Floribunda Ave 9,515 0.22 10 1 45.78 Condo 2/24/14 Caltrain Station Caltrain Station Peninsula Hospital City of Burlingame Priority Development Area (PDA) PDA Boundary School San Francisco B a y Burlingame City Li mits Burlingame City Li mitsBurlingame City Li mits El Camino Real Corridor ROLLINS CA L I F O R N I A EL CA M I N O REAL BA L B O A AIRPORT PAL O M AADELINE D R A K ERAYBE R N A L HOWARD CA R O L A N SUMMI T C O RT E Z LA G U N A A D R I A N CA B R I L L O ANZACANYONCARMELITADAVISHILLSI D E VA N C O U V E RTROUSDALE OAK GROVEHALECA P U C H I N O EASTONP A R K A N I T A PEPPERBARR O IL HETPALM L O R T O N DW I G H T B L O O M F I E L D BAYSWA TERGI L B R E T H FLORIB U N DABAYSHORE HWY C O L U M B U S BELLEVUESE Q U O I A MI LLBRA EW A L N U T BE N I T O ELM SHA R O N CHAPINPOPPYPENINSULAMURCHISONDE S O T O ED GEHILLPINON ACACIA A R U N D E L Q U E S A D A N EW H A L L BURLINGAMEF E Y MILLSLEXINGTONJACKLING CA R L O S M A R I N SA NCHEZMARTINEZGROVE C L A R E N D O N BELLA VISTAEA S T M Y R T L ELINCOLNSTANTON C R E S C E N TARMSBYMORRELL W E S T M O O R MAHLERHINCKLEYCA S T I L L O VALDIVIA M O N T E R O O G D E N DAVIDLA S S E N CAROLASTERDEVEREAUXTIPT OE LIN D E N MA R S T E N LA U R E L ARC NO R T H C A R O L A NOXFORD GERIIRWINHILLSBOROUGHGENEVRA C H A T H A MDUFFERIN DONNELLYEA S T M O O R KENMARDOUGLASINGOLDFARRINGDON WARRENVI S T A GUITTARDJUANITATULIPCADILLACCONCORDRHINETTEBROADWAYPARKHIGHWAY 101 HI G H W A Y 1 0 1 Millbrae BART/ Caltrain Station City of Millbrae Town of Hillsborough City of San Mateo EL C A M I N O R E A L Secretary RESOLUTION NO. __-2014 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 25.63 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW REQUIRING INCENTIVES OR CONCESSIONS FOR QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENTS RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, State Law requires the adoption of a Density Bonus Ordinance, under Government Code §§65915-65919; and WHEREAS, the City’s existing Inclusionary Housing provisions require modification to reflect governing state law and account for local conditions; and WHEREAS, current regulations should be updated to reflect governing state law and account for local conditions; and WHEREAS, efficiency and transparency are served by combining the objectives served by the existing Inclusionary Housing provisions into the required Density Bonus Ordinance; WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance revises the requirements for granting a residential density bonus to comply with revisions to State law enacted by the Legislature through the adoption of Senate Bill 1818. Adoption of the draft density bonus codifies allowances that developers have been able to use in housing developments since 2003. Further, the revisions modify the criteria and incentives offered to qualifying developments but do not authorize construction not already permitted under the City’s existing codes. Also, it is uncertain how many project applicants will seek to utilize the provisions of State law and this Ordinance and where such projects might be located in the City. Further, each individual project will be subject to its own environmental review. Consequently, this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 14, 2014, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report, the Draft Density Bonus Ordinance and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. It is recommended that the Council of the City of Burlingame approve amendments to Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Comply with State Law Requiring Incentives or Concessions for Qualifying Developments. Findings for the recommendation to the City Council regarding the ordinance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. ________________________ CHAIR I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of October , 2014 , by the following vote: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION will hold a public hearing to consider amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning Ordinance, to implement a Residential Density Bonus Ordinance and amend Inclusionary Housing requirements. Density Bonus Ordinance: State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915, requires local governments to provide density bonuses and other incentives to developers of affordable housing who commit to providing a certain percentage of dwelling units to persons whose income does not exceed specific thresholds. Inclusionary Housing: Chapter 25.63 (Inclusionary Housing) of the Burlingame Municipal Code is proposed to be repealed and replaced with the Density Bonus Ordinance. The Planning Commission will review the proposed amendments to Title 25 of the Municipal Code (zoning code), and make a recommendation to the City Council. The hearing will be held on Monday, September 22, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. The staff report for this item and copies of the Draft Density Bonus Ordinance may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department, Planning Division, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame; and on the City's website at www.burlingame.org. For additional information please call the Planning Division at (650) 558-7250. To be published Friday, September 12, 2014. 1 of 2 October 12, 2014 Honorable Planning Commissioners: I’m writing you with regard to Tuesday’s agenda item 1A, “additional incentive option allowing relief to upper floor step-back requirements” (section 25.63.040) that would essentially amount to reduced side setbacks for R3 and R4 structures over one story in height. It has been my frequent observation from PC meetings that a primary objection to higher density structures is not only a concern about mass and bulk, but also the lack of privacy between adjacent structures. While proper design review can mitigate mass and bulk to a certain extent, there are few options for a finite space between structures. Regrettably, it is not unusual to see existing mature landscaping, including trees, removed, when it is deemed that their survival is unlikely in the footprint of a new structure. Consequently, landscape solutions tend to be perfunctory rather than meaningful, unlikely to ever play an aesthetically or even functionally important role in the final project. With current setbacks already quite minimal, to consider reducing them even more risks the creation of narrow, lifeless dark shafts of space between properties that are not even marginally sufficient to support plantings of any substance, being limited in light and space for normal growth of roots and crowns. These valuable spaces should not be considered throw-away spaces, best reduced and filled with more building. Instead, they should be embraced as they are integral to providing not only the opportunity for meaningful greenery, light and air, but balancing positive and negative spaces on the parcel, giving the entire project design much needed dimension and richness. This is particularly critical along R3 and R4 properties along El Camino Real, a residential district within what is essentially a linear, urban park. On many of these properties that have been built over various decades, longtime mature plantings extend well beyond the historic tree-lined edges, having critical presence in front and side setbacks that give the scenic and historic highway its visual depth and interest. Furthermore, the minimal landscaping that exists around large, high-density projects all over our city may be the only greenery enjoyed by many apartment dwellers on a regular basis; it is certainly cherished and adds to the quality of life in Burlingame. 10.14.14 PC Meeting Item #8a Residential Density Bonus Page 1 of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED OCT 14 2014 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. 2 of 2 Finally, I am aware of some designs where the literal interpretation of ordinance 25.28.075(f) has resulted in peculiar, pyramidal shaped structures that can be inefficient to build. However, this was most certainly not the intent or purpose of the original ordinance. Rather than shrink setbacks further, it would make more sense to spend some time rewording this section of our code so that its meaning is no longer ambiguous and that its original and valid purpose of creating more light, space, and visual interest, is honored. Very sincerely yours, Jennifer Pfaff 615 Bayswater Ave. Burlingame City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit Address: 1205 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in a detached garage; project includes enlarging an existing detached garage. Applicant and Property Owner: Lori Potter APN: 026-173-100 Architect: McGriff Architects Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e), which states that construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences is exempt from environmental review. Project Description: The site currently contains an existing two-story story house (1,828 SF) and a detached one-car garage (221 SF). The applicant is proposing to enlarge the existing detached garage by 120 SF towards the rear of the lot. The detached garage would increase in size from 221 SF (12’-2” x 18’-2”) to 341 SF (12’-2” x 28’-0”). The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to install a toilet and sink in an enclosed room within the detached garage. With this application, the floor area ratio will increase from 2,715 SF (0.45 FAR) to 2,835 SF (0.47 FAR) where 3,361 SF (0.56 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 526 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 15% of the maximum allowed FAR. Two off-street parking spaces (1 covered and 1 uncovered) are provided and required for the existing four- bedroom house. With this application, there is no increase in the number of bedrooms in the main dwelling. The existing detached garage is nonconforming in covered parking space length (17’-2” clear interior dimensions provided where 18’-0” is the minimum allowed for existing conditions). With this application, the interior clear dimensions of the covered parking space length will be increased to 21’-7 3/8” to comply with current code standards for new construction (20’-0” minimum required). All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in a detached garage; project includes enlarging an existing detached garage (CS 25.60.010 (j)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 8b Action Item Conditional Use Permit 1205 Bernal Avenue -2- 1205 Bernal Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: September 24, 2014 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Lot Coverage: 2049 SF 34.1% 2169 SF 36.1% 2400 SF 40% Floor Area Ratio: 2715 SF 0.45 FAR 2835 SF 0.47 FAR 3361 SF ¹ 0.56 FAR Use in Accessory Structure: one-car garage one-car garage with a toilet and sink ² Conditional Use Permit required for a toilet in an accessory structure Accessory Structure Size: 221 SF (12’-2” x 18’-2”) 341 SF (12’-2” x 28’-0”) 600 SF Building Length: 18’-2” 28’-0” Special Permit required if structure exceeds 28’-0” in length Plate Height: 9’-0” 9’-0” CUP required for plate height greater than 9’-0” above grade Building Height: 11’-7 1/8” 14’-0” 15’-0” above grade if plate height does not exceed 9’-0” # of bedrooms: 4 no change --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (11'-2” x 17'-2”) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (11'-2” x 21'-7 3/8”) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10'-0” x 20'-0”) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') ¹ (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF + 341 SF = 3,361 SF (0.56 FAR) ² Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in an accessory structure. ³ Existing nonconforming covered parking space length (17’-2” clear interior dimensions provided where 18’-0” is the minimum allowed for existing conditions). Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that since this request for Conditional Use Permit is limited to enlarging an existing detached garage, the application was placed directly on the action calendar. If the Commission feels there is a need for more discussion, this item may be placed on a future action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. See attached memos from the Building, Engineering, Parks and Stormwater Divisions. Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; Conditional Use Permit 1205 Bernal Avenue -3- (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 24, 2014, sheets A-1.0, A-1.1 and A-4.0, and that any changes to footprint or floor area of the accessory structure shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 3. that the conditions of the Building Division’s September 24, 2014 and August 29, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s September 10, 2014 memo, the Parks Division’s September 2, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s September 4, 2014 memo shall be met; 4. that any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Lori Potter, applicant and property owner McGriff Architects, architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation dated August 26, 2014 Conditional Use Permit Application Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 3, 2014 Aerial Photo Item No. 8c Action Item City of Burlingame Special Permit Address: 1361 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 Request: Application for Special Permit for a reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces for a project consisting of adding on the first floor, converting the existing attached garage to habitable area and building a new detached garage. Applicants and Property Owners: John Kloster and Laura Ayala-Kloster APN: 027-151-070 Architect: TRG Architects Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The existing two-story house with an attached two-car garage contains 2,733 SF (0.45 FAR) of floor area and has four bedrooms. The applicant is proposing an interior remodel and a 20 SF first floor addition which includes converting the existing attached two-car garage at the rear of the house to a new family room. There is no increase in the number of bedrooms proposed (existing house contains four bedrooms). Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. This application includes converting the existing attached two-car attached garage (19'-10½ wide x 20'-5½” deep clear interior dimensions) to a new family room. A new detached one-car garage (11’-5” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) is proposed in the rear left corner of the lot; the proposed detached garage complies with all off-street parking and accessory structure regulations. One uncovered space is provided in the driveway. A request for Special Permit is required to reduce the number of parking spaces existing on site from 3 spaces (2 covered and 1 uncovered spaces) to 2 spaces (1 covered and 1 uncovered spaces). All other Zoning Code requirements have also been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Special Permit for a reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces to convert an existing attached garage to habitable area and to build a new detached garage (CS 25.26.035 (b)). Planning staff would note that the proposed project is not subject to Design Review since with this application there is no increase in the plate height and the plate height does not exceed 9’-0” above finished floor level. This space intentionally left blank. Special Permit 1361 Vancouver Avenue 2 1361 Vancouver Avenue Lot Area: 6000 SF Plans date stamped: September 16, 2014 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Side (left): (right): 14’-0” 6’-0” 18’-0” 6’-8” 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st floor): 24’-0” no change 15'-0" Lot Coverage: 1985 SF 33% 2277 SF 37.9% 2400 SF 40% FAR: 2733 SF 0.45 FAR 3025 SF 0.50 FAR 3292 SF ¹ 0.54 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 no change --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (19'-10½ W x 20'-5½” D clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (11'-5” x 20'-0” clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10'-0” x 20'-0” clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') # of parking spaces on-site: 3 (2 covered + 1 uncovered) 2 2 (1 covered + 1 uncovered) Special Permit required for reduction in # of existing parking spaces ¹ (0.32 x 6000 SF) + 1100 SF + 272 SF = 3292 (0.54 FAR) ² Special Permit for a reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on site. Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that since this request for a Special Permit is limited to replacing an existing attached two-car garage with a new detached one-car garage which complies with the off-street parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms in the main dwelling, and that the application is not subject to design review, the application was placed directly on the action calendar. If the Commission feels there is a need for more discussion, this item may be placed on a future action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit to reduce the number of parking spaces existing on the site, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and Special Permit 1361 Vancouver Avenue 3 (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 16, 2014, sheets A1.0 through A3.5 and SK-2; 2. that the conditions of the Building Division’s September 17, 2014 and August 19, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s September 18, 2014 and August 21, 2014 memos, the Fire Division’s August 18, 2014 memo, the Engineering Division’s September 8, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s August 20, 2014 memo shall be met; 3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. John Kloster and Laura Ayala-Kloster, applicants and property owners TRG Architects, architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation, dated August 14, 2014 Special Permit Application Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 3, 2014 Aerial Photo PROJECT LOCATION 1224 Capuchino Avenue Item No. 8d Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1224 Capuchino Avenue Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicants and Property Owners: Davina and Ron Drabkin APN: 026-095-230 Architect: Carl Groch Lot Area: 5400 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The subject property is zoned R-1 and is located adjacent to an existing two-story apartment building, zoned R-3 (multifamily residential). The existing one-story house with a detached oversized one-car garage contains 1,786 SF (0.33 FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a first and second floor addition at the rear of the house. With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,714 SF (0.50 FAR) where 3,228 SF (0.60 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 514 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. W ith this project, the number of potential bedrooms is increasing from three to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing detached garage complies with current code standards for a covered parking space (16’-0” wide x 29’-0” deep, clear interior dimensions provided where 9’ x 18” is the minimum required for existing garages). One uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2). 1224 Capuchino Avenue Lot Size: 5,400 SF Plans date stamped: September 29, 2014 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 16’-0” to porch no change 15'-0" or block average (2nd flr): n/a 40’-2” 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 2'-1" 15’-9” 4'-0" 15’-9” 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 47’-2” n/a 37’-0” 37’-0” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1893 SF 35% 2115 SF 39.1% 2160 SF 40% FAR: 1786 SF 0.33 FAR 2714 SF 0.50 FAR 3228 SF 1 0.60 FAR ¹ (0.32 x 5,400 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,228 SF (0.60 FAR) Item No. 8d Action Item Design Review 1224 Capuchino Avenue 2 1224 Capuchino Avenue Lot Size: 5,400 SF Plans date stamped: September 29, 2014 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D # of bedrooms: 3 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (16’-0” x 29’-0”) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) no change 1 covered (9' x 18' for existing) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 15’-9” 23’-9” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on September 8, 2014, the Commission had several questions and comments regarding the proposed project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar. Please refer to the attached September 8, 2014 Planning Commission minutes for a detailed list of concerns and comments regarding this project. The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans dated September 29, 2014, to address the Planning Commission’s questions and comments. Please refer to the applicant’s response letter for a complete list of changes made to the project in response to the Commission’s concerns. In his response letter, the applicant clarifies where existing vinyl windows will be re-used and where new fiberglass clad wood windows will be installed. The applicant provided informational sheets from two manufactures of fiberglass clad wood windows they are considering; they include Marvin Integrity Series and Anderson Series 400 Windows (see attached). Planning staff would also note that one of the changes since the design review study meeting includes reducing the second floor plate height by 0’-6”, from 9’-6” to 9’-0”. As a result, this change also reduces the overall building height by 0’-6”, from 22’-3” to 22’-9”. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. This space intentionally left blank. Design Review 1224 Capuchino Avenue 3 Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 29, 2014, Cover Sheet and sheets 1, A1.0 through A3.3 and L1.0; and that all new windows shall be wood with fiberglass or aluminum cladding on the exterior; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s August 29, 2014 and July 18, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s August 29, 2014 and July 21, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s August 25, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s July 21, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s July 22, 2014 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; This space intentionally left blank. Design Review 1224 Capuchino Avenue 4 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Davina and Ron Drabkin, applicants and property owners Carl Groch, architect Attachments: September 8, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Response Letter submitted by the applicant, dated September 29, 2014 Information Sheet for Marvin Integrity Series and Anderson Series 400 Windows Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation, dated July 12, 2014 Letter of Support, submitted by Alene J. Meyer, dated July 9, 2014 Letter of Support, submitted by Robert M. Van Winkle, Sr. and Andrea Hamilton, dated July 13, 2014 Inspirational Photographs submitted by applicants Photographs of Neighborhood Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 3, 2014 Aerial Photo PROJECT LOCATION 1530 Burlingame Avenue Item No. 8f Action Item City of Burlingame Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review Address: 1530 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 Request: Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. Applicant and Architect: John Stewart, Stewart Associates APN: 028-283-070 Property Owners: Chris and Meaghan Schaefer Lot Area: 7,209 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation (Part I) was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., date stamped June 19, 2014. The results of the evaluation concluded that 1530 Burlingame Avenue is eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction using State of California DPR 523A and 523B forms. The evaluation concluded that the building is significant as an excellent example of Craftsman-style residential architecture constructed within the early-twentieth-century residential subdivision of Burlingame Park. Therefore, the residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue is considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Page & Turnbull prepared an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed addition under the Secretary of the Interior’s Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and pursuant to CEQA, dated September 11, 2014 (Part II). The proposed project was evaluated according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and was found to comply with all applicable Standards. The analysis noted that “the proposed project would primarily affect secondary façades, however, and overall it would be compatible with the residence’s character-defining form, materials, and features to the extent that it would not harmfully distract from the original construction.” It was determined that the proposed new construction would be compatible with the existing residence and the overall integrity and historic character of the property would be retained. As a result, the proposed project would not create an impact on the residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue for the purposes of CEQA. Because there was a potential impact on historic resources, an Initial Study was prepared for the project. However, based upon the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project impacts can be addressed by a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the Initial Study did not identify any adverse impacts which could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation (please refer to the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 576-P). The purpose of the present review is to hold a public hearing and evaluate that this conclusion, based on the initial study, facts in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, public comments and testimony received at the hearing, and Planning Commission observation and experience, are consistent with the finding of no significant environmental impact. Item No. 8f Action Item Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review 1530 Burlingame Avenue 2 Project Description: The existing two-story house with an attached carport contains 3,216 SF (0.45 FAR) of floor area and has 4 bedrooms. The proposed project includes removing the existing carport along the right side of the house and the existing trellis area at the rear of the house and adding 350 SF on the first floor and 390 SF on the second floor along the right side and rear of the house. With the proposed addition and remodel, the floor area on site will increase to 3,448 SF (0.48 FAR) where 3,627 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 179 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 5% of the maximum allowed FAR. With the proposed addition, the number of bedrooms will not be increasing (4 existing). Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached carport will be demolished and replaced with a new detached one-car garage (10’ wide x 20’ clear interior dimensions), which will provide one code compliant covered parking space. One uncovered space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Mitigated Negative Declaration, a determination that with mitigation measures there will be no significant environmental effects as a result of this project; and  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling and a new detached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 1530 Burlingame Avenue Lot Area: 7,209 SF Plans Date Stamped: August 6, 2014 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 21’-4” (to overhang) 30’-10” no change no change 22'-8" (block average) 22'-8" (block average) Side (right): (left): 3'-0" (to carport) 5’-11” 11’-8” 5’-11” (to addition) 5'-0" 5’-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 48’-10” (to trellis) 62’-0” 56’-1” (to bay) 57’-4” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,226 SF 31% 2,077 SF 29% 2,884 SF 40% FAR: 3,216 SF 0.45 FAR 3,448 SF 0.48 FAR 3,627 SF 0.50 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (10'-0” x 20’-0”) 1 uncovered (9'-0” x 20’-0”) 1 covered (10'-0” x 20’-0”) 1 uncovered (9'-0” x 20’-0”) 1 covered (10'-0” x 20’-0”) 1 uncovered (9'-0” x 20’-0”) Height: 29’-3” 28’-9” (to addition) 30'-0" DH Envelope: non-conforming 2 complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 7,209 SF) + 1,100 SF + 220 SF = 3,627 SF (0.50 FAR) 2 The existing two-story house is non-conforming with regards to declining height envelope along the left side. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review 1530 Burlingame Avenue 3 Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study meeting on July 28, 2014, the Commission had several questions and comments regarding the proposed project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar. Please refer to the attached July 28, 2014 Planning Commission minutes for a list of concerns and comments regarding this project. The applicant submitted a response letter, dated September 25, 2014, and revised plans, date stamped August 6, 2014, to address the Planning Commission’s questions and comments. Please refer to the applicant’s response letter for a summary of changes made to the project in response to the Commission’s concerns. Mitigated Negative Declaration: Because there was a potential impact on historic resources, the proposed project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission held an environmental scoping session for this project on July 28, 2014. An Initial Study was prepared by the Planning Division staff. As presented the Mitigated Negative Declaration identified issues that were "less than significant with mitigation incorporation" in the area of cultural resources. Based upon the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project impacts can be addressed by a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the Initial Study did not identify any adverse impacts which could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation (please refer to the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 576-P). The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for 20 days for public review on September 24, 2014. The 20-day review period ends on October 14, 2014; as of the printing date of this staff report (October 9, 2014), no comments have been submitted on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Required Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report and within the Negative Declaration. Affirmative action on the following items should be taken separately by resolution including conditions from the staff report and/or that the commissioners may add. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Design Review. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review 1530 Burlingame Avenue 4 Please note that the conditions below include mitigation measures taken from the mitigated negative declaration (shown in italics). If the Commission determines that these conditions do not adequately address any potential significant impacts on the environment, then an Environmental Impact Report would need to be prepared for this project. The mitigations will be placed on the building permit as well as recorded with the property. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 6, 2014, sheets A1 through A9; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s July 3 , 2014 and May 8 , 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s July 1 , 2014 and May 9 , 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s May 7, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s May 5, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s May 6 , 2014 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review 1530 Burlingame Avenue 5 12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Cultural Resources 14. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out. 15. If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame. 16. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review 1530 Burlingame Avenue 6 Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. John Stewart, Stewart Associates, applicant and architect Chris and Meaghan Schaefer, property owners Attachments: July 28, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Response Letter submitted by the applicant, dated September 25, 2014 Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation, dated July 21, 2014 Photographs of Neighborhood Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 3, 2014 Aerial Photo Separate Attachments: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study (ND-576-P), dated September 24, 2014 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Historical Resource Evaluation (Part I) prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., date stamped May 24, 2014. 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Historical Resource Evaluation (Part II) prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., date stamped September 11, 2014. CITY OF BURLINGAME 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 To: Interested Individuals From: City of Burlingame County Clerk of San Mateo Community Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-576-P) Project Title: 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Addition to Existing Single Family Dwelling Project Location: 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The proposal includes a first and second story addition to the existing single family dwelling and replacing an existing attached carport with a new detached garage at 1530 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house and detached garage would cover 29% (2,077 SF) of the 7,209 SF lot, where 40% (2,884 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,448 SF (0.48 FAR) where 3,628 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is subject to CEQA because on based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. An historic survey has been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that it is not eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places. 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 Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A negative declaration is prepared for a project when the initial study has identified no potentially significant effect on the environment, and there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project 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, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has prepared a Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010. As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on September 24, 2014. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the end of the 20-day review on October 14, 2014. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination set forth in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing to: City of Burlingame Community Development Department – Planning Division. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period described above. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1530 Burlingame Avenue, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been tentatively scheduled for October 14, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: September 24, 2014 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 1530 BURLINGAME AVENUE INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. Project Title: 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Addition to Existing Single Family Dwelling and New Detached Garage 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: William Meeker, Community Development Director (650) 558-7250 4. Project Location: 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Chris and Meaghan Schaefer 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 6. General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1 APN: 028-283-070 8. Description of the Project: The proposal includes a first and second story addition to the existing single family dwelling and replacing an existing attached carport with a new detached garage at 1530 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house and detached garage would cover 29% (2,077 SF) of the 7,209 SF lot, where 40% (2,884 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,448 SF (0.48 FAR) where 3,628 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The new detached garage (10’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) would provide one covered parking space for the proposed four-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. A Historic Resource Evaluation (Part I) was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., date stamped June 19, 2014. The results of the evaluation concluded that 1530 Burlingame Avenue is eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction using State of California DPR 523A and 523B forms. The evaluation concluded that the building is significant as an excellent example of Craftsman-style residential architecture constructed within the early-twentieth-century residential subdivision of Burlingame Park. Therefore, the residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue is considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Page & Turnbull prepared an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed addition under the Secretary of the Interior’s Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and pursuant to CEQA, dated September 11, 2014 (Part II). The proposed project was evaluated according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and was found to comply with all applicable Standards. Proposed new construction would be compatible with the existing residence and the overall integrity and historic character of the property would be retained. As a result, the proposed project would not create an impact on the residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue for the purposes of CEQA. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the Burlingame Park No. 2 Subdivision, in the southern portion of Burlingame west of El Camino Real. The original house on the parcel (built in approximately 1915) remains on the property today. All of the properties in this subdivision, as well as neighboring subdivisions were included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. This area is made up entirely of single family residential properties. The Town of Hillsborough lies two blocks to the west of the subject property and the Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies one block to the east of the subject property. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: There are no permits required from other public agencies. However, San Mateo County is a responsible agency. A building permit is required from the Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 5 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion The site currently contains a two-story single family dwelling and attached carport. The proposed project consists of adding 350 SF to the existing first floor along the rear and right side of the house and adding 390 SF to the existing second story at the rear of the house. The project also includes replacing the existing single-car carport along the right side of the house with a new detached single-car garage at the rear of the lot. The project is subject to residential Design Review to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed house and detached garage would cover 29% (2,077 SF) of the 7,209 SF lot, where 40% (2,884 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,448 SF (0.48 FAR) where 3,628 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The height of the proposed addition, as measured from average top of curb to top of roof ridge, will be 28’-9” where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed. The first and second story addition will be setback 56’-1” and 57’-4”, respectively, from the rear property line where 15’-0” is the minimum required to the first floor and 20’-0” is the minimum required to the second floor. Exterior materials on the existing house include an asphalt shingle roof, painted shingle siding, wood eave brackets and a brick chimney. The proposed exterior materials on the first and second floor addition would match the existing house. Exterior lighting provided on the lot will be required to conform to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be directed onto the site. With the relatively modest scale of the addition, its placement at the rear of the house, and one new landscape tree (two existing landscape trees to remain), views from surrounding properties will be minimally impacted. The neighborhood consists of a variety of styles, most of which are one and two-story dwellings. The subject property will be consistent with the development in this area. While the increase in habitable living area from the project has the potential to generate an incremental increase in light generated on the site compared to existing conditions, the project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area since the house would be screened by other existing houses and existing and proposed vegetation and trees. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 6 Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 – Electrical Code, Burlingame, California, 2010 edition. Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. Site Visit, September, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 7 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 2. AGRICULTURE 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site does not include active agricultural uses, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use and would have no effect on farmland or any property subject to a Williamson Act contract. Mitigation Measures: None Required Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 8 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No 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) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion The proposed application is for construction of a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling and a new detached single-car garage. While this project will accommodate a larger dwelling unit for habitation, the change in emissions is insignificant. The subject property is zoned for low-density residential development and with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction, the proposed project will not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. Demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 9 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected wetlands, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion The site currently contains an existing single family residence and attached carport. There are two existing landscape trees on the property, including 4-inch diameter Japanese Maple tree in the front yard and a multi- trunk (6 and 12-inch diameter) Glossy Privet tree in the rear yard; these existing trees are proposed to remain. In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with a single-family residence is required to provide a minimum of one, 24-inch box-size minimum, non-fruit tree, for every 1,000 SF of habitable space. With the proposed project, a total of three landscape trees (existing and new) are required on the subject property. The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements. The landscape plan indicates that the one, 24-inch box size Japanese Maple tree will be planted in the front yard. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 10 Sources City of Burlingame, Parks Division Memoranda, dated July1, 2014 and May 9, 2014. The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 – Zoning, Burlingame, California Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game. Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 11 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 5. 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 a unique 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? Discussion The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation (Part I) was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., date stamped June 19, 2014. The results of the evaluation concluded that 1530 Burlingame Avenue is eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. Page & Turnbull prepared an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed addition under the Secretary of the Interior’s Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and pursuant to CEQA, dated September 11, 2014 (Part II). The results of the analysis concluded that “as designed, the proposed project would comply with eight Standards (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10); Standards 6 and 7 are not applicable to the proposed project.” The analysis noted that “the proposed project would primarily affect secondary façades, however, and overall it would be compatible with the residence’s character-defining form, materials, and features to the extent that it would not harmfully distract from the original construction. Consequently, the proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.” The following is an excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation that was conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc.: “The following analysis applies each of the applicable Standards for Rehabilitation to the proposed project at 1530 Burlingame Avenue. This analysis is based upon the proposed designs by Stewart Associates, dated 24 June 2014, as submitted to Page & Turnbull by the City of Burlingame. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 12 Rehabilitation Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Discussion: The building at 1530 Burlingame Avenue was constructed as a single-family residence, and it does not appear to have served any additional purpose during its history. It will continue to be used as a single-family house; the proposed project would create additional interior bedroom and kitchen space, thus supporting its original residential use. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 1. Rehabilitation Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. Discussion: The proposed project would involve the removal of historic materials, particularly in areas where the rear and side additions are planned. Large areas of the existing exterior wall and wood shingle cladding would be removed from the northeast and northwest façades in order to accommodate proposed additions. Likewise, five original wood brackets would be removed from underneath the bargeboard of the rear façade. Existing additions on the rear façade, however, are not considered significant, and most windows and doors located in exterior areas planned for demolition are not original to the residence. Four original wood-sash, nine-over-one windows—two located in the east half of the northeast façade, and a pairing on the southwest façade—would be replaced by new windows with eight-light configurations. The character-defining features that would be removed are not located on the residence’s primary façade, and the proposed project would not remove the residence’s most visible areas of shingle cladding, wood brackets, and wood-sash windows. The construction of an addition that projects from the residence’s northeast façade may alter the impression of the house’s solid, front-gabled massing. While the addition would project less than 4’ from the façade, its gabled roof would form a cross gable that would add observable bulk to the residence. Although some materials and features which contribute to the character of the building would be removed, the building would still convey its historic character in spite of these alterations. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 2. Rehabilitation Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties, will not be undertaken. Discussion: Proposed new construction has been designed to replicate the original design and materials of the residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue. The fabric of the addition would include wood shingle cladding and decorative wood brackets identical to those original features found on the existing building. New roof slopes on the gables of the planned addition would match the slopes of the roof of the original residence. Likewise, the garage that is proposed for the north corner of the lot would employ design features that are characteristic of Craftsman-style residential architecture from the main house’s date of construction: namely, exposed rafter tails, wood shingle siding, and wood brackets. However, the proposed project would not include elements from other historical properties and would not interfere with the building’s ability to be recognizable as a Craftsman-style residence constructed during the early twentieth century. The proposed garage, however, would stand in the same location and would conform to the same architectural style as the original garage. It may not be clear, therefore, that the proposed garage would be a recent addition to the property. In spite of this issue, it is anticipated that the majority of elements of the Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 13 proposed project would be discernible as recent alterations. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 3. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Discussion: The residence has experienced several previous alterations. These alterations include the construction of the attached carport and rear additions; the installation of new windows and doors on the northwest and northeast façades; and the construction of the rear pool equipment shed. The residence was determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources for its embodiment of the Craftsman architectural style from the time it was constructed; therefore, no subsequent alterations to the building are considered to have acquired significance in their own right. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 4. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Discussion: The proposed project would result in the removal of certain materials and features that are characteristic of the Craftsman architectural style, for which the residence at 1530 Burlingame is a significant example. These features include wood shingle cladding, decorative brackets, exposed rafter tails, and wood-sash windows. The proposed project would not affect the most visible of these elements from the public right-of-way, and alterations would not overwhelm the building’s existing material palette. As a result, the residence would continue to be characterized by its original materials and features. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 5. Rehabilitation Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Discussion: The proposed project does not appear to involve the repair or replacement of deteriorated or missing features. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 6. Rehabilitation Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Discussion: It is not anticipated that the proposed project would involve the use of chemical or physical treatments that may affect the residence’s character-defining features. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 7. Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Discussion: Excavation work would be required during the construction of the proposed rear addition and garage. If any archaeological material is encountered during this project, construction should be halted and the City of Burlingame’s standard procedures for treatment of archaeological materials should be adhered to. If standard procedures are followed in the case of an encounter with archaeological material, the proposed project would comply with Rehabilitation Standard 8. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 14 Rehabilitation Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and environment. Discussion: As previously discussed, the proposed project would involve new construction and alterations that would result in the removal of historic, character-defining features from the exterior of the residence. Most of the affected features, however, are located on the front façade or the most publically visible portions of the residence; proposed changes would not eliminate the most prominent examples of features that characterize the design of the property. Proposed new construction—including the new garage—is designed to imitate the Craftsman-style architectural elements that characterize the residence. The proposed addition and garage would feature wood-shingle siding, exposed rafter tails underneath eaves, and decorative brackets that are identical to elements that are original to the residence. These considerations ensure that new construction would be compatible in style with the existing building, but they may also result in some confusion over which elements are original. The addition, however, would be differentiated from the original volume of the building by its arrangement of eight-light windows, which provide a contrast to the residence’s original nine-over-one, two-sash windows. As windows on the northeast façade of the addition would be visible from the sidewalk, it is anticipated that the addition would be recognizable by the trained eye as a non- original component of the residence. Therefore, the proposed project generally complies with Rehabilitation Standard 9. Rehabilitation Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Discussion: The proposed side and rear addition would require a substantial amount of the residence’s exterior wall to be demolished. This includes the entire rear façade, although much of this façade has already been heavily altered due to a series of previous additions. Approximately half of the historic fabric on the northeast façade would be removed. If the proposed addition would be removed from the residence in the future, the building’s integrity would not be negatively affected. As the addition would not be located on the primary façade, its removal in the future would not affect the essential form of the property; in fact, it would restore the residence’s original roof form. In the case that the addition is removed, therefore, the residence would still convey its essential, character-defining form and would still retain the most visible examples of its historic features and materials. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 10. As designed, the proposed project would comply with eight Standards (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10). Standards 6 and 7 are not applicable to the proposed project. The proposed alterations to the northeast, northwest, and southwest façades would result in the removal of character-defining features (namely original wood-sash windows, wood-shingle cladding, wood brackets, and exposed rafter tails), would add some bulk to the massing of the residence, and would not be substantially differentiated from the house’s existing fabric. The proposed project would primarily affect secondary façades, however, and overall it would be compatible with the residence’s character-defining form, materials, and features to the extent that it would not harmfully distract from the original construction. Consequently, the proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 15 This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth- century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood’s eligibility as a historic district.” Based on relevant archaeological reports for the immediate area, there are no known cultural resources associated with the site and the proposed project will not create any cultural impacts to the affected area. Project related construction activities involving ground-disturbance during construction could result in significant impacts, if any unknown culturally significant sites are discovered. If remains were unearthed during project construction, damage to or destruction of significant archaeological remains would be a potentially significant impact. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains and/or traces of prehistoric plant and animal life exclusive of human remains or artifacts. Fossil remains, such as bones, teeth, shells, and wood, are found in geologic deposits (rock formations). The project vicinity has been developed and no known paleontological resources have been recorded. Because the proposed project would result in minimal excavation in bedrock conditions, significant paleontologic discovery would be unlikely. However, significant fossil discoveries can be made even in areas of supposed low sensitivity. The site has no known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. However, it is impossible to be sure about the presence or absence of human remains on a site until site excavation and grading occurs. The proposed project requires additional excavation for the building’s slab foundation, therefore there is a low likelihood that human remains will be encountered. Mitigation Measures: Potential impacts to archeological resources would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5a. In the event a paleontological resource is encountered during project activities, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5b would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. In the event human remains are encountered during project activities, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5c would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 5a: In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 16 Mitigation Measure 5b: If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame. Mitigation Measure 5c: If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Historical Resource Evaluation (Part I) prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., date stamped May 24, 2014. 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Historical Resource Evaluation (Part II) prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., date stamped September 11, 2014. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 17 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No 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 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 liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion The site is flat and located in a semi-urban setting which has been developed with single family residential dwellings for the last 100 years, with most of the lots in vicinity over 6,000 SF in area. There will be less seismic exposure to people and equipment than at present, since the addition to the single family residence will comply with current California Building Code seismic standards. The site is approximately two miles from the San Andreas Fault. The project will be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 18 Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps, http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibility/, accessed March, 2014. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1981. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated July 3, 2014 and May 8, 2014. Project Plans date stamped August 6, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 19 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards. SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant. The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:  For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities.  For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e. Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the screening criteria, Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 20 then the project’s air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. For single family dwellings, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes) set a screening threshold of 56 dwelling units for any individual single family residential project. The proposed project would be comprised of one unit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD Homepage, accessed May 2012). As such, lead agencies need to determine appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Lead agencies may rely on the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures. However, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air District’s 1999 Thresholds of Significance and to make determinations regarding the significance of an individual project’s air quality impacts based on substantial evidence in the record for that project. For this analysis, the City of Burlingame has determined that the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in the updated May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for project operations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are the most appropriate thresholds for use to determine air quality impacts of the proposed Project. First, Burlingame has used the May 2011 BAAQMD thresholds in previous environmental analyses under CEQA and found them to be reasonable thresholds for assessing air quality impacts. In addition, these thresholds are lower than the 1999 BAAQMD thresholds, and thus use of the thresholds in the May 2011 CEQA Guidelines is more conservative. Therefore, the city concludes these thresholds are considered reasonable for use in this analysis. In this case, the proposed project includes one unit. Given that the proposed project would fall well below the 56 dwelling units threshold specified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for single family residential development, it is not anticipated that the project will create significant operational GHG emissions. Climate Action Plan. Burlingame’s Climate Action Plan is designed to focus on near- and medium-term solutions to reduce its emissions. These program and policy recommendations were developed after careful consideration of the unique characteristics and demographics of the Burlingame community and the major sources of emissions from Burlingame’s Community Greenhouse Inventory. The five major focus areas include: energy use/green building, transportation/land use, solid waste, education/outreach and municipal programs. Energy efficiency and green building programs provide the fastest and most economical means to reduce emissions. The proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Burlingame’s Green Building Ordinance. Verification of compliance with Section A5.203.1.1 Tier 1 (15% above Title 24) of the Green Building Ordinance or LEED Silver shall be accepted as the methods of meeting compliance with this ordinance. By complying with the Green Building Ordinance, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment nor would it conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 21 Sources Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2011 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes). City of Burlingame, Climate Action Plan, Burlingame, California, June, 2009. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated July 3, 2014 and May 8, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 22 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: 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? 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) 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its residential nature, this project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. There are no known health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. NPDES Best Management Practices are required to ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 23 Sources: The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, February 16, 2012. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 24 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion This project includes a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and a new detached garage on the lot. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway. The project site is shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel No. 06081C0153E. The site is located in Flood Zone X, which is outside the 100-year flood zone, and is not a Special Flood Hazard Area. Zone X is described as an area of moderate risk to flooding (outside of the 100-year flood but inside the 500-year flood limits) (determined to be within the limits of one percent and 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain). The ground floor of the project is proposed to be constructed about 3'-9” above average top of curb (elevation 32.03’). The subject property is relatively flat, and all of the surface water will be required to drain to the street frontage. As required by the Public Works Department – Engineering Division, roof and surface water will not be allowed to drain onto adjacent properties. Water will either be absorbed by soft landscaping or be collected and directed out to the street (see storm drain discussion above). Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 25 The site is tied into existing water main and storm water collection distribution lines which have adequate capacity to serve the existing building. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street. There will be a minimum increase to the amount of impervious surface area on the lot since the first floor addition and new detached garage would be built where there currently exists paving; the extended driveway is proposed to be constructed using crushed granite (pervious material). Since the site is less than five acres, the project is not subject to the state-mandated water conservation program; although water conservation measures as required by the City will be met. The domestic potable water supply for Burlingame and the proposed project area is not provided by groundwater sources, but rather from surface water sources maintained by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Groundwater would not be used to supply water for the project, and no dewatering of the site is anticipated. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. The project proponent will be required to ensure that all contractors implement BMP’s during construction. This project is subject to the state mandated Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance; compliance will be determined by approval of a complete Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist, and landscape and irrigation design plans at time of the building permit application. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 26, Chapter 26.16 – Physical Design of Improvements, Burlingame, California. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, October 16, 2012. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated May 7, 2014. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated May 6, 2014. Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 26 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: 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 community conservation plan? Discussion The subject property is currently occupied by a two-story single family dwelling and attached carport. The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 SF for lots in this area, based on City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712. This existing lot is 7,209 square feet in area and is not part of a proposed subdivision or lot adjustment. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The project is subject to single family residential Design Review. The general plan would allow a density of eight units to the acre and the application is for one unit on 0.17 acres, a density of six units per acre. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The subject property is within the Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 2, which abuts the Town of Hillsborough to the west, and which was included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences, all of which are within the City of Burlingame city limits. The existing single family dwelling is a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District. The project would not result in a fundamental conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on land use and planning. The proposed residence conforms to all measurable requirements of the zoning code. The Planning Commission will review the project and determine compliance with Design Review criteria. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 27 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion According to the San Mateo County General Plan, Mineral Resources Map, the project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. San Mateo County, General Plan, October 18, 2010. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 28 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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? Discussion The surrounding area has been occupied by single family dwellings for many years. With the addition to the existing single family dwelling, there will be no significant increase to the ambient noise level in the area. The noise in the area will be general residential noise such as vehicles coming to and from the house, sounds from the residents when using the backyard and noises from putting out garbage cans. The new structure will be compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. Construction of the proposed addition to the house will not require pile driving or other significant vibration causing construction activity. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code, which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. In addition, the site is located outside the designated noise-impacted area from San Francisco International Airport. The project does not include any permanent operational activity that would result in excessive or perceptible vibration, and the operational impact of the project on increased vibration levels would be less than significant. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 29 Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated July 3, 2014 and May 8, 2014. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 30 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? Discussion This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density residential uses. The proposed addition to the existing single family dwelling conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element. The proposed project will not create any more housing because it is an addition to an existing single family dwelling on the same parcel. Since the subject property contains a single family dwelling, the project would not displace existing housing or people. A new road, extension of a roadway or other infrastructure is not required for the single family dwelling and therefore the project would not induce substantial population growth. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on population and housing. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 2010. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 31 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Discussion The subject property is located within the City of Burlingame jurisdiction. The proposed project includes enlarging an existing single family dwelling on the site, which represents an insignificant increase in the total population of the City. Therefore, existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the existing residential unit. Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which also serves the Town of Hillsborough. Three stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road. As part of the permitting process, the Central County Fire Department would review project plans before permits are issued 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. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional demand for fire protection services, and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities, the project’s potential impact on fire protection services would be less than significant. Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department, located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project consists of enlarging an existing single family dwelling. Therefore, the project would not result in an increased demand for police services or require the expansion or construction of police facilities. The project’s potential impact on police services would be less than significant. Students in the City of Burlingame are served by two school districts: Burlingame School District (BSD) for grades K-8 and San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for grades 9-12. The proposed project would not add any additional residential units, and there will be no increase in the number of potential bedrooms in the dwelling. Therefore it is anticipated that the potential number of school-age children would not increase, or only increase slightly. Any students generated by the project would be accommodated by the existing capacity of the two districts, resulting in a less than significant impact. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 32 The City of Burlingame is served by several parks and recreation facilities, including 13 parks and playgrounds, an aquatic center, and a golf and soccer center. Since there would be no increase in the number of residential units, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other public facilities and therefore the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memoranda, dated May 5, 2014. City of Burlingame Website, www.burlingame.org This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 33 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15. 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? 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? Discussion The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The sites involved in this project are not presently zoned or used for recreational purposes. Since the proposed project consists of enlarging an existing single family dwelling, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other recreation facilities. Therefore, impacts to recreation would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 34 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion The site is on Burlingame Avenue, a collector street that provides access to El Camino Real, a regional arterial. This project will not create an increase in the traffic generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any temporary incremental increase to traffic or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities. With the addition, there will be no increase in the number of potential bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached carport will be demolished and replaced with a new detached one-car garage (10’ wide x 20’ clear interior dimensions), which will provide one code compliant covered parking space. One uncovered space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. The proposed project meets the off-street parking requirement established in the zoning code. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012 Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 35 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No 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? Discussion The subject property is currently occupied by a single family dwelling. Water is provided to the subject property by an existing 4-inch cast iron pipe along Burlingame Avenue. The existing residence is connected to an existing 6 -inch sewer main along Burlingame Avenue. To prevent flooding a backflow prevention device is required to be installed. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street frontage, where it will flow along Burlingame Avenue to a catch basin o El Camino Real. The City Engineer has indicated that there is adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage systems to accommodate the addition to the house. Therefore, the project’s impact to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant. The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems. All new utility connections to serve the site and that are affected by the development will be installed to meet current code standards; sewer laterals from the main on the site to serve the new structure will be checked and replaced if necessary. The current solid waste service provider is Recology, which hauls waste collected in Burlingame to the San Carlos Transfer Station and the Recyclery of San Mateo County for sorting then disposal at Ox Mountain Landfill. Demand for solid waste disposal services generated by the project could be adequately served by existing capacity at the transfer station and landfill and the project would comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 36 Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractor would be required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream and transport and recycle the construction waste separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid waste generated during operation of the project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated May 7, 2014. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated May 6, 2014. Recology San Mateo County, www.recologysanmateocounty.com , site accessed September, 2014. Project Plans date stamped August 6, 2014. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 37 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative 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? Discussion The project does not have the potential to 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. Any potential short-term increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less than significant level, as described throughout the Initial Study. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project will not have significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________ NRHP Status Code_____________________________________ Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________ Page _1_ of _12_ Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) P1. Other Identifier: 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date: 2012 *c. Address 1530 Burlingame Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number: 028 -283-70 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 1530 Burlingame Avenue is a two-and-one-half story, wood-frame, front-gabled residential building located on the north side of Burlingame Avenue between Occidental Avenue and El Camino Real. Built c. 1915 and designed in the Craftsman style, the building is set back approximately 35’ from the street on a rectangular lot measuring approximately 53’ x 136’. The building is rectangular in plan, approximately 35’ x 40’, with a front-gabled, enclosed porch projecting from the primary (southeast) façade, and a shed-roofed carport spanning the northeast façade. At the rear (northwest) façade, the first story includes an addition that projects approximately 10’ from the rear (northwest) of the building and is wider than the main mass of the building by approximately 3’ on either side: at the right (south), this addition is two stories. The residence has a concrete foundation and features a concrete stem wall that rises approximately two feet above grade. The building is clad in painted wood shingles, and the roof is covered in asphalt shingle roofing. Rafter tails and purlins are exposed at all eaves. Original windows are predominantly wood-sash, nine-over-one, single-hung with ogee lugs. The building has a grass front lawn and a swimming pool and pool shed in the back yard. (See continuation sheet.) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Photo: (view and date) View from southeast, 06/04/2014 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: c. 1915 (based on Burlingame water records) *P7. Owner and Address: Meagan and Christopher Schaefer 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 1000 Sansome St. San Francisco, CA 94108 *P9. Date Recorded: 06/04/2014 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”) None *Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (list) DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information P5a. Photo State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 2 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *P3a. Description (continued): The primary (southeast) façade (Figure 1) features a prominent glazed entrance porch at the right (east) half of the first story that projects toward Burlingame Avenue (Figure 2). The porch has a front-gabled roof that is supported at each corner by a tapered wood pier. The piers carry a milled wood lintel that spans the width of the porch and supports a pairing of purlins at each of its ends (Figure 3). At the center of the porch is a pair of ten-light wood doors, flanked by vertically oriented ten-light fixed wood windows and topped by a narrow transom window. Wood steps lead from the porch doors to a brick paved walk and are flanked by low walls clad in wood shingles. Within the porch, the primary entrance to the building is a multi-light wood door with a fixed, horizontally- oriented six-light window at right. The left (west) half of the first story features a three-sided angled bay with a shed roof (Figure 4). The front side of the bay includes two nine-over-one windows (Figure 5), and the sides have one nine-over-one window each. The second story of the primary façade features two groups of three nine-over-one windows. A four-light, fixed wood attic window is located within the gable and is flanked by wood louvered vents. Five ornamental, diagonally-braced wood brackets are located underneath the bargeboard on this façade. The northeast façade features the front porch at the far left (east), with a thirty-five-light fixed wood window at the first story and a small wood access door in the stem wall. The remainder of the first story of this façade is covered by the shed-roof carport (Figure 6) supported by three milled wood posts along its outer edge. The carport shelters a paved driveway that leads from Burlingame Avenue. Underneath the carport, the center of the façade includes a ten-light wood door accessed via a contemporary wood landing and steps (Figure 7), and, to the left of the door, a pair of four-light, apparently fixed wood windows. Between the first and second stories, left of center above the carport, is a nine-over-one window opening from the interior stair. The second story of the northeast façade contains a nine-over-one window at the left (east), two one-over-one single-hung wood-sash windows with textured glass and ogee lugs right of center, and two apparently fixed, single-light wood windows at the right (north) (Figure 8). A detached shed is located underneath the carport near the north corner of the residence (Figure 9). The shed features a wood panel door on its southeast façade. The rear (northwest) façade (Figure 10) includes an addition at the first-story that extends three feet past the width of the main mass of the building. This first-story addition includes an angled bay window at left (east) with two nine-over one windows; a pair of ten-light wood doors left of center; a fifteen-light fixed wood window right of center, and a ten-light wood door at far right (west) (Figure 11). The right (west) half of the first story includes a raised wood patio with a wood arbor, which is accessed via four wood steps. At the second story, at right (west) there is a hipped-roof second-story addition that extends slightly over the depth of the first story addition. This addition includes a small aluminum-sash sliding window at the far right (west) of its northwest façade and a wood ten-light door with vinyl screen door and vinyl sliding window with false muntins on its east façade (Figure 12). The left (east) half of the second story includes an apparently wood fifteen-light door and two fixed single-light wood windows, which face onto a balcony that sits atop the first-story wing. The balcony has a railing of wood balusters leading along its northwest edge. A small aluminum-sash sliding attic window is located at the center of the gable. As on the primary façade, five wood brackets are located underneath the bargeboard on this façade. The southwest façade (Figure 13) features a mortared brick chimney right of center that rises through the roof soffit (Figure 14). The base of the chimney features a hinged iron ashpit door. The first story features a nine-light fixed wood window at far right (south), an angled bay identical to the one on the primary façade (Figure 15) at center, and an aluminum-sash sliding window at far left (north), on the rear façade addition. The second story includes a nine-over-one window at far right (south), a nine-over-one window and small infilled single-light window at center, and a pairing of nine-over-one windows at far left (north). A hinged plywood door pairing is located in the stem wall at center, leading to a crawlspace underneath the house. The residence faces a grass lawn, which is separated from Burlingame Avenue by a concrete sidewalk and parking strip. The parking strip contains a mature London plane tree, which is similar to other trees of the same age that line both sides of the street on this block. A paved asphalt drive leads along the northeast edge of the lot and enters the carport. A mortared brick planting bed is located at the center of the front lawn, containing a young Japanese maple tree. The primary façade of the residence and the fence along the southwest edge of the lot are lined by similar planting beds, containing shrubs and low ornamental planti ngs. A hedgerow lines the northeast side of the lot, beside the asphalt drive. To the rear of the residence is a grass lawn with a s wimming pool and raised soaking tub, installed in 1980 (Figure 16). The pool is surrounded by a concrete walk with brick edging. At the north corner of the lot is a plywood and wood frame pool house, likely built at the same time as the pool. The pool house features a pairing of strap-hinged X-braced plywood doors, a wood door with four-light window, and sliding vinyl window with false muntins. Within the rear lawn, beds with ornamental plantings are located alongside the rear fence and the northwest façade of the residence. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 3 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 1. Southeast and northeast façades, viewed facing west. Page & Turnbull, June 2014. Figure 2. Front porch, viewed facing north. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 3. Detail of lintel and purlin construction on front porch. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 4. Oriel bay on southeast facade. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 5. Detail of typical wood-sash nine-over-one window. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 4 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 6. Northeast façade and attached carport, viewed facing west. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 7. Door and windows on northeast façade between kitchen and carport. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 8. Fenestration on second story of northeast façade. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 9. Detached shed underneath carport. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 10. Northwest façade, viewed facing southeast. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 11. Patio and arbor adjoining the west half of the southeast façade. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 5 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 12. Northeast side of second-story addition on the rear façade. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 13. Second story of southwest and southeast façades, viewed facing north. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 14. Chimney and windows near south corner of the southwest façade. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 15. Oriel bay and second-story windows on the southwest facade. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 16. Rear lawn, containing swimming pool and pool house, viewed facing north. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 6 of 12 *NRHP Status Code__3CS_________________________ *Resource Name or # 1530 Burlingame Avenue B1. Historic name: None B2. Common name: None B3. Original Use: Single family residence B4. Present use: Single family residence *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The residence at 1530 Burlingame Ave. was constructed c. 1915. Additions and alterations with known permit dates include: 1976: second-story rear addition constructed on northwest façade (Permit #W687); 1980: swimming pool and equipment installed to the rear of the house (Permit #2032); 1983: carport and shed constructed on northeast façade, and rear garage possibly demolished (Permit #5426); 1989: Kitchen interior remodeled, exterior door added between kitchen and carport, and two single -hung windows replaced with fixed window pairing (Permit #8770); 1991: Masonry fireplace removed, and new chimney constructed (Permit #11575); 2002: Roof replaced (Permit #632). Other apparent alterations that remain undated include the enclosure of the front porch (after 1969). *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________ *B8. Related Features: none B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: same *B10. Significance: Theme Residential architecture____________ Area Burlingame Park ___________________ Period of Significance c. 1915 (date of construction) Property Type Single family residence Applicable Criteria__3_____ (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Historic Context: City of Burlingame The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican -era land grant given by Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold ove r 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted to Ralston, and eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this pe riod, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small- scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line b etween large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The l atter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. (See continuation sheet.) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: (see continuation sheet) B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Jonathon Rusch, Page & Turnbull *Date of Evaluation: June 12, 2014 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Sketch Map Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2014. Edited by author. (This space reserved for official comments.) State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 7 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *B10. Significance (continued): Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and busines ses. Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910 annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to th e City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107. Burlingame Park Neighborhood The residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one o f three subdivisions (including Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. The Rancho was inherited by Joseph Henry Poett and later sold to Anson Burlingame in 1866 and to William C. Ralston in 1872. Ralston began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Hall’s early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands. Newlands commissioned Hall’s cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan “centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree-lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents” (Brechin 1999, 94). The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club , and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911. Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded by El Camino Real to the northeast; Howard, Crescent, and Barroilhet a venues to the southeast; Pepper Avenue to the southwest; and Bellevue Avenue to the northwest. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of about fifty years. 1530 Burlingame was constructed approximately one decade after the subdivision was platted. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s, and the majority of the residences in the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. Many of these were designed in high architectural styles and were grander in scale than the earlier residences. By 1949, nearly all of the approximately 250 lots in Burlingame Park were developed. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth century building boom, to the present day. The house at 1530 Burlingame Avenue is a representative example of the residential building styles constructed in Burlingame Park during its early years. 1530 Burlingame Avenue In 1905, the Burlingame Realty Company purchased the lot that currently contains 1530 Burlingame Avenue, as well as another lot in the Burlingame Park subdivision, for a total price of $10. This was the same year that the subdivision was platted. The grantor of these lots was Marie Hastings of San Francisco. The associated deed stipulated that the Burlingame Realty Company must approve the design of any house constructed on the lot. The deed also required that any subsequent resi dence have at least a 20’ setback from the street, and that no offensive commerce or sales of liquor or were permitted on the property. According to th e document, “The main object of the aforesaid conditions and covenants is to prevent such use of the prem ises hereby granted as might tend to diminish either the valuable or pleasurable enjoyment of the rest of said Burling ame Park or Burlingame Rancho” (“It Was a Big Deal in Those Days!” n.p.). The lot appears to have remained empty prior to 1913: the Sanborn Fire Insurance map that was printed that year captures only the north corner of the subject lot, and no garage is visible there (Figure 17). More than half of the lots in downtown Burlingame contained buildings at this time. Yet Burlingame Park, the residential neighborhood south of downtown across Main County Road (present-day El Camino Real), was sparsely developed. According to the Sanborn map, only two houses stood on the present -day block of 1530 Burlingame Avenue. The residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue was likely constructed c. 1915. No original building permits have been located for the residence, so its architect, builder, and original owner remain unknown.1 This potential date of construction is based on Burlingame water records, which show that the property was connected to the municipal water supply on July 10, 1915. (The city’s water supply was introduced in 1913, so all buildings constructed prior to that year have water records dated 1913 .) 1 In 1926, a building permit was issued for an $8,000 project at 1530 Burlingame Av enue. The owner identified on the permit, James Cortez, is listed in the 1927 Burlingame city directory at 1529 Burlingame Avenue (directly across the street from the subject property). This building permit, then, appears to be associated with the construc tion or expansion of a neighboring house. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 8 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L The earliest known occupants of the residence are William and Hillary Edwards. William Edwards is listed at 1530 Burlingame Avenue in the 1918 San Mateo, Burlingame, and Hillsborough city directory, which specifies his occupation as an “S.S. agent, S.F.” Although the “S.S.” portion of Edwards’s title is unclear, “S.F.” suggests that he commuted into San Francisco on the railroad, as did many Burlingame residents during the first decades of the twentieth century. According to the 1920 United States Census, William and Hillary Edwards remained in the residence that year with their two children, William Jr. and Katharyn. The census identified William Edwards’s occupation that year as a manager, with a notation of “Pac. R.,” possibly meaning the Southern Pacific Railroad. The residence appears in the next printed Sanborn map, in 1921 (Figure 18). The map illustrates that at this time, the house consisted of the central rectangular volume with an unenclosed front porch, two projecting angled bays, and an addition that extends from only the north half of the rear façade, projecting slightly past the adjacent northeast facade. A one-car garage stood in the north corner of the lot. Five other houses had been constructed on the north side of Burlingame Avenue by this year, a nd nine houses total were located on the block. All had detached one-car garages. Julian C. Whitman, a stockbroker, and his wife Frances are listed at 1530 Burlingame Avenue in the 1925 Burlingame City Directory. The 1930 U.S. Census, conducted after the Whitmans had moved to West Poplar Avenue in San Mateo, indicate that the couple had four children at the time they lived at 1530 Burlingame Avenue. The 1927 Burlingame city directory lists Earle B. Terry, a Maytag salesman, as the occupant of the residence. Between 1929 an d 1932, directories identify the occupant as his wife (likely widow), Mrs. Flora Terry. No occupation is specified. Maurice W. Goldsmith, who worked in insurance, occupied the residence in 1936. James Naylor, an attorney, lived in the house with his wife Kathryn between 1939 and 1953. According to the household’s entry in the 1940 U.S. Census, the Naylors were both born in Washington, D.C., and had two children, Nancy (6 years old) and Thomas (2). The Census also recorded the family’s servant, Mayme Richards, a 45-year-old native of Nebraska. The fact that Richards was recorded at this address suggests that she lived with the Naylor family in their residence. The Naylors did not own their residence at this time, and instead they paid $75 monthly in rent. The owner of the prope rty remains unknown. The next available city directory, published in 1958, lists Robert and Clalya Woolsey as the residents of 1530 Burlingame Ave nue. Robert Woolsey was a department manager at the Kilburg Corporation. The residence was put on the market in 1967 by Nixon Elliott, a local real estate broker. Based on a photograph from this year in the broker’s records (Figure 19), the front and northeast façades of the residence resemble its current appearance. The wood shingle cladding does not appear to have yet been painted, and the front of the porch had not been enclosed with glazing and a paired door. The original one-car garage at the rear of the lot appears to have been expanded by this time to include a second gabled automobile bay. The residence was placed on the market again two years later, and it sold for $33,000. A photograph associated with the property listing that year (Figure 20) suggests that no substantial changes had occurred since 1967. The listing described the house as having five bedrooms, two baths, and a two-car garage. The listing called the house “mildly updated, light and airy with a ‘hoary charm.’” In the 1969 sale, the residence may have been granted to Mary Thurston, who was the owner of the property in 1972. That year, ownership transferred to Daniel Thurston, presumably her husband. Daniel Thurston, a local building contractor who purchased Millbrae Lumber Company with a partner in the early 1980s, was a long-term resident of 1530 Burlingame Avenue. He had two children, Daniel and Maryann; he later remarried and had two sons with his wife Lucille. Daniel Thurston was an active community member and belonged to the Green Hills Country Club and Sausalito Yacht Club. Under the Thurstons’ ownership, the residence received a serie s of updates. The City of Burlingame issued a permit in 1976 for a “2nd story” costing $3,500—likely the two-story addition on the rear façade. In 1980, the family added the rear swimming pool and affiliated equipment for $7,500. The shed-roofed carport, measuring 12’ x 38’, was added to the northeast façade in 1983, at a cost of $3,000. (The two-car garage at the rear of the property was likely demolished at this time.) The Thurstons remodeled the interior of their kitchen in 1989, which involved the addition of an exterior door near the north corner of the house, leading from the kitchen to the carport. Next to the door, two single-hung windows were replaced by a pairing of fixed wood-sash windows. The brick masonry chimney was replaced in 1991 by United Chimney Service, and the house was re-roofed in 2002. The doors and windows on the southeast side of the porch, facing Burlingame Avenue, remain undated. Daniel Thurston died in 2010; the following yea r the residence was transferred to a trust in Lucille Th urston’s name. In 2014, the property sold to Christopher and Meagan Schaefer. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 9 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L The following list of occupants of the property and their approximate dates of occupancy was gathered from city directories, deeds held by San Mateo County, and information provided by the Burlingame Historical Society. Other occupants are unknown: William and Hillary Edwards (1918-1920) Julian C. and Frances Whitman (1924-1925) Earle B. Terry (1927) Mrs. F.O. Terry (1929-1932) Maurice W. Goldsmith (1936-1937) James M. and Kathryn C. Naylor (1939-1953) Robert and Clalya Woolsey (1958) Mary Thurston (1971-1972) Daniel Thurston (1972-1996) Daniel and Lucille Thurston (1996-2011) Lucille Thurston (2011-2014) Meaghan and Christopher Schaefer (2014-present) Figure 17. 1913 Sanborn insurance map, showing that the north corner of the subject lot was empty at this time. North is upper left. San Francisco Public Library/Digital Sanborn Maps, edited by the author Figure 18. 1921 Sanborn insurance map, showing that the residence and garage at 1530 Burlingame had been constructed by this year. North is up. San Francisco Public Library/Digital Sanborn Maps, edited by the author State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 10 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 19. Realty photograph of 1530 Burlingame Avenue, 1967 Burlingame Historical Society Figure 20. Realty photograph of 1530 Burlingame Avenue, 1969 Burlingame Historical Society Evaluation: Significance The residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue is not currently listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (Californi a Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Bur lingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed locally. The residence at 1530 Burlingame does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Registers under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house does express contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of the Burlingame Park subdivision, but it would best convey this significance as a contributing resource within a historic district. Such a district evaluation is outside the scope of this report (see note below). The property, therefore, does not rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for register inclusion under Criterion 1. The residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons) for its association with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. None of the identified owners or occupants appear to have made important contributions to national, state, or local histor y that meet the State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 11 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L significance threshold for historic register inclusion. Therefore, the property does not rise to the level of significance ne cessary to be individually eligible for register inclusion under Criterion 2. The residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue does appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master. While the architect and builder are unknown and cannot be considered masters, the building displays an exemplary collection of architectural features closely associated with the Craftsman style. The Craftsman style was exceptionally popular in the United States between approximately 1905 and 1930, as it was available to a large audience across social classes. Plans were widely disseminated by pattern books and manufacturers’ publications, and industrially milled construction materials could be shipped throughout the country by rail. At the same time, the style expressed aesthetic refinement and gave the impression of hand-worked features, in line with the earlier Arts and Crafts movement, that suggested these buildings were expensive to produce. 1530 Burlingame Avenue, built at the height of popularity for the Craftsman style, has a an exemplary collection of Craftsman-associated features: shingle siding, front porch with tapered piers, wood -sash windows with ogee lugs, exposed rafter tails underneath broad eaves, and decorative roof brackets on the primary and rear facades. Additionally, the residence exhibits the Craftsman style’s emphasis on horizontality, conveyed through its low roof pitches, overhanging eaves, and groupings of windows on the primary façade. 1530 Burlingame Avenue is a very good example of a Craftsman-style house within an early twentieth-century residential subdivision; it is therefore individually significant for its architectural merit and appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 1530 Burlingame Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. Integrity The residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association. It remains in its original location. Alterations to the exterior of the residence have large ly occurred on the rear façade. Those that have not—including the addition of an attached carport and the enclosure of the front porch—do not detrimentally detract from the residence’s integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. While the exterior of the residence was painted after 1969, the exterior cladding remains clearly identifiable as wood shingles. The chimney has been reconstructed, but its materials (brick) and method construction (mortar masonry) are appropriate to the age of the residence. Changes in the immediate landscape, such as the rear swimming pool and contemporary planting beds, somewhat affect the residence’s integrity of setting. The surrounding Burlingame Park neighborhood, however, is still characterized by single-family homes and curvilinear, tree-lined streets appropriate to a 1910s/1920s residential subdivision. As such, the building has integrity of setting, feeling, and association. Overall, the property retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance as an outstanding Craftsman-style home within an early residential subdivision in Burlingame. Character Defining Features: - Box-like massing with prominent street-facing gable; - Gabled front porch with tapered piers and low walls alongside entry stairs; - Projecting three-sided bays at the primary (southeast) and southwest façades; - Exposed rafter tails underneath eaves; - Wood shingle cladding; - Diagonally-braced wood brackets underneath bargeboards on primary and rear façades; - Original wood-sash windows, particularly nine-over-one single-hung windows with ogee lugs; - Exposed lintel and paired purlin structure of porch Conclusion 1530 Burlingame Avenue appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3. The Cali fornia Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “3CS” has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was “found eligible for California Register as an individual property through survey evaluation.” This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth-century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood’s eligibili ty as a historic district. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 12 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *B12. References: Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. Building Permit Records, 1530 Burlingame Avenue, City of Burlingame, CA. Burlingame City Directories. Burlingame Historical Society files. Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: B urlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004. “It Was a Big Deal in Those Days!” Splinters, San Mateo-Burlingame Board of Realtors, May 7, 1971. McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. “Millbrae Lumber Company to Close,” The Daily Journal, September 28, 2011, available http://archives.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=200137. Parcel History, San Mateo County Hall of Records, Redwood City. United States Federal Census records: 1920, 1930, 1940. San Mateo County Assessor Records. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1913, 1921. imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology Page & Turnbull 1530 BURLINGAME AVENUE HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION PART II [14118A] PREPARED FOR: CITY OF BURLINGAME SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -1- TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 2 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................... 2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 3 II. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE AND CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES .............. 4 III. CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS .................................................................................. 5 IV. PROPOSED PROJECT ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 11 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .............................................................................. 11 STATUS OF EXISTING BUILDING AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE ....................................................... 11 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE CHANGE UNDER CEQA ...................................... 12 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 13 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS ............................................................................... 15 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................... 19 V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 20 VI. REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................ 21 APPENDIX A: DPR 523 A & B FORMS, 2014 ........................................................... 22 APPENDIX B: PROPOSED PROJECT DRAWINGS, 2014 ....................................... 35 Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -2- I. INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) has been prepared at the request of the City of Burlingame to determine the compatibility of proposed alterations to the single-family residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue (APN 028-283-070). This property was found eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources through previous evaluation. The residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue is a two-and-one-half-story Craftsman-style residence constructed ca. 1915, located on the north side of Burlingame Avenue between Occidental Avenue and El Camino Real (Figure 1). According to project plans submitted by Stewart Associates and a Design Review Study completed by the City of Burlingame, proposed construction would involve the removal of an existing carport adjoining the northeast façade of the residence. A two-and-one-half-story addition would be constructed and would project from the northeast and northwest (rear) façades. The project would also involve the construction of a one-car garage at the north corner of the lot, connected to Burlingame Avenue by a new driveway leading along the northeast edge of the parcel, as well as minor alterations to the residence’s landscape. Figure 1. San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Map, with subject property lot outlined in red. Source: http://www.smcare.org/apps/parcelmaps/, edited by the author. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION 1530 Burlingame Avenue was evaluated in 2014 by Page & Turnbull using State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 523A (Primary) and 523B (Building, Structure and Object) Forms (Appendix A). Page & Turnbull’s evaluation found the building eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture) for embodying the distinctive characteristics of Craftsman residential architecture within the Burlingame Park residential subdivision. Therefore, Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -3- 1530 Burlingame Avenue should be considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project was evaluated according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and was determined to comply with all of the Standards. METHODOLOGY This report follows Page & Turnbull’s standard Historic Resource Evaluation Report and includes a summary of the building’s current historic status; a summary of the building’s historic significance; a list of character-defining features that enable the building to convey its historic significance; and current photographs of the building. Based on the finding of historic significance, the proposed project is evaluated using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Standards). All photographs in the report were taken by Page & Turnbull in June 2014. Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -4- II. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE AND CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES As described above, 1530 Burlingame Avenue has been found historically significant under California Register Criterion 3 (Architecture) as an exemplary Craftsman-style residence constructed within an early twentieth-century subdivision. For a property to be eligible for national, state, or local designation under one of the significance criteria, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. The 2014 DPR 523A and 523B forms include a list of the character-defining features for the residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue. Generally, significance for architecture is supported by the retention of features that relate to design, materials, and workmanship; significance for association with events or persons is supported by the retention of features that relate to location, setting, feeling, and association. The character-defining features of 1530 Burlingame Avenue are:  Box-like massing with prominent street-facing gable;  Gabled front porch with tapered piers and low walls alongside entry stairs;  Projecting three-sided bays at the primary (southeast ) and southwest façades;  Exposed rafter tails underneath eaves;  Wood shingle cladding;  Diagonally-braced wood brackets underneath bargeboard on primary and rear façades;  Original wood-sash windows, particularly nine-over-one single-hung windows with ogee lugs;  Exposed lintel and paired purlin structure of porch Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -5- III. CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS In preparation for completing DPR 523A and 523B forms for the residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Page & Turnbull conducted a field survey of the property in June 2014. The purpose of the field survey was to gather photographic documentation in aid of evaluating the property for its eligibility for listing in the California Register. The following photographs were taken during this site visit and illustrate the current conditions of the residence. The photographs are referenced in the proposed project analysis that follows. Figure 2. Southeast and northeast façades, viewed facing west. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 3. Detail of first-story angled bay on primary façade. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 4. Detail of first-story porch on primary façade. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -6- Figure 5. Northeast façade, with adjoining carport and driveway, viewed facing west. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 6. Detail of door, window pairing, and wood landing on northeast façade, underneath the carport. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -7- Figure 7. Detail of shed and support posts underneath carport. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 8. Detail of second-story windows located at the northeast façade. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -8- Figure 9. Northwest façade, viewed facing southeast. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 10. Detail of north half of northwest façade. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -9- Figure 11. Detail of patio and arbor adjoining the west half of the southeast façade. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 12. Detail of second-story addition covering the west half of the northwest façade. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -10- Figure 13. West (rear) half of the southwest façade, viewed facing east. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 14. Rear lawn, containing swimming pool and pool house, viewed facing north. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -11- IV. PROPOSED PROJECT ANALYSIS This section analyzes the proposed project for project-specific and cumulative impacts on the environment, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) is state legislation (Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.), that provides for the development and maintenance of a high quality environment for the present day and future through the identification of significant environmental effects (defined on the following page).1 For public agencies, the main goals of CEQA are to: 1. Identify the significant environmental effects of projects; and either 2. Avoid those significant environmental effects, where feasible; or 3. Mitigate those significant environmental effects, where feasible. CEQA applies to “projects” proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval from state or local government agencies. “Projects” are defined as “…activities which have the potential to have a physical impact on the environment and may include the enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative subdivision maps.”2 Historical and cultural resources are considered to be part of the environment. In general, the lead agency must complete the environmental review process as required by CEQA. The basic steps are: 1. Determine if the activity is a “project;” 2. Determine if the project is exempt from CEQA; 3. Perform an Initial Study to identify the environmental impacts of the project and determine whether the identified impacts are “significant.” Based on the finding of significant impacts, the lead agency may prepare one of the following documents: a) Negative Declaration for findings of no “significant” impacts; b) Mitigated Negative Declaration for findings of “significant” impacts that may revise the Project to avoid or mitigate those “significant” impacts; c) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for findings of “significant” impacts. STATUS OF EXISTING BUILDING AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE A building may qualify as a historic resource if it falls within at least one of four categories listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). The four categories are:  A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).  A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must 1 State of California, California Environmental Quality Act, accessed 19 November 2013, http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/summary.html. 2 Ibid. Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -12- treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.  Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).  The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Pub. Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Pub. Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Pub. Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. In general, a resource that meets any of the four criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) is considered to be a historical resource unless “the preponderance of evidence demonstrates” that the resource is not historically or culturally significant.”3 Based on analysis and evaluation contained in the 2014 DPR 523A and 523B forms, 1530 Burlingame Avenue meets the criteria for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. As such, the property is considered a qualified historic resource under CEQA under the third of the categories listed above. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE CHANGE UNDER CEQA According to CEQA, a “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.”4 Substantial adverse change is defined as: “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would be materially impaired.”5 The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance” and that justify or account for its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to local ordinance or resolution.6 Thus, a project may cause a substantial change in a historic resource but still not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as defined by CEQA as long as the impact of the change on the historic resource is determined to be less-than- significant, negligible, neutral or even beneficial. 3 Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq. 4 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b). 5 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(1). 6 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(2). Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -13- PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION A proposed project designed by Stewart Associates, date stamped 24 June 2014, was submitted to Page & Turnbull for review in August 2014, along with a Design Review Study for the proposed project, conducted by the City of Burlingame. The current proposed project involves the removal of existing exterior walls and additions from the northeast and northwest façades, as well as the shed- roofed carport adjoining the northeast façade of the residence. In the place of these elements, an L- shaped, cross-gabled addition would be constructed over the northwest façade and the north half of the northeast façade. The addition would increase the interior floor space from 3,216 ft2 to 3,448 ft2, providing an additional 350 ft2 on the first story and an additional 390 ft2 on the second story. New wood decks, steps, and patios would be constructed adjacent to entrances into the proposed addition, and an existing pool equipment shed would be removed from its location along the rear lot line. Skylights and a new gutter system are proposed. Lastly, a one-car garage would be constructed in the north corner of the lot, and it would be reached by an extension of the existing driveway along the northeast edge of the lot. The proposed project is described in greater detail below. Site plans and elevations for proposed construction are included in this report as Appendix B. The design vocabulary for proposed new construction aims to conform to the residence’s existing Craftsman-style architectural details. All new exterior walls would be clad in wood shingle siding to match existing cladding. New roofs would have slopes to match the roof of the original building. Newly constructed roof gables would feature wood brackets and exposed rafter tails to match the existing features of the house. Southeast (Primary) Façade The proposed project would involve no alterations to the existing elements of the southeast (primary) façade. Northeast Façade Proposed construction would involve construction of a two-and-one-half-story gabled addition over the north half of the northeast façade. Construction of the addition would require the demolition of the exterior wall where the addition is planned, as well as the removal of the existing shed-roofed carport, constructed in 1983, and detached shed located underneath the carport roof. Features on this façade that would be removed include: a first-story door, fixed window pairing, and wood landing with steps, installed during a kitchen remodel in 1989; an original nine-over-one double- hung, wood-sash window located between the first and second stories, corresponding to the interior stair; and four undated windows located at the north end of the second story. The proposed addition would begin approximately 24’ to the rear of the front of the porch on the primary façade, projecting 3’-10” to the northeast from the original volume of the residence. The proposed addition would then span 34’-4” to the rear. A skirt roof would be constructed on this façade between the first and second stories, connecting the roof of the front porch to the new addition. The skirt roof would shelter a door and wood landing with steps located on the southeast wall of the addition. The first story of the addition would feature four eight-light windows and one pairing of eight-light windows. The second story would contain a central pairing of eight-light windows, in addition to a four-light window to the left. Above the second story, the gable of the addition would contain a four-light, fixed attic window flanked by louvered vents, similar in appearance to the existing feature located within the gable of the southeast façade. Five diagonally- braced, decorative wood brackets would be located underneath the bargeboard of the addition’s gable. Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -14- The proposed project would also involve the removal of the original nine-over-one wood-sash window located on the second story near the east end of the façade. This window would be replaced by a pairing of eight-light windows to match the windows located in the new addition. Northwest (Rear) Façade The proposed addition would extend across the full width of the northwest façade, forming an end- gabled projection toward the northwest. Construction of the addition would require the demolition of all exterior walls on this façade. Features that would be removed include: the existing first-story projection, including an angled bay with semi-hipped roof; the rear wood patio and arbor; the second-story addition that covers the west half of the façade, constructed in 1976; the second-story balcony located at the north half of the façade; the aluminum sliding attic window located within the gable; and five diagonally-braced wood brackets located underneath the bargeboard of the roof. As designed, the rear addition would feature an angled bay under a shed roof with exposed rafter tails on the north half of the first story. The west half of the façade would feature a paired door and eight- light window that open to a new raised wood patio accessed by steps. A wood trellis would be installed over this window and door. The second story of the addition would feature two pairings of eight-light windows identical to those proposed on the northeast façade of the addition. The gable would contain a four-light attic window flanked by louvered vents, similar to the feature within the proposed gable at the northeast façade. Five diagonally-braced brackets would be located underneath the gable’s bargeboard, resembling the features that would be removed to accommodate the addition. The southwest-facing roof slope on this addition is slightly lower than the adjacent roof slope of the original residence. Southwest Façade The proposed project would involve the removal of a pairing of original nine-over-one wood-sash windows, located on the second story near the west end of the original volume of the house. These windows would be replaced by a pairing of eight-light windows, to match the windows located on the new addition. Site The proposed project would include the construction of a detached, single-car garage in the north corner of the lot, in order to provide one code-compliant covered parking space following the removal of the carport. The garage would face Burlingame Avenue and would be connected to the street by a straight automobile drive paved in crushed granite, which would lead alongside the northeast boundary of the lot. As designed, the garage would have a footprint measuring approximately 10’ x 20’. The walls of the garage would be clad in wood shingles to match the adjacent residence, and the building would feature exposed rafter tails underneath the roof eaves, as well as three diagonally-braced brackets underneath the bargeboard on the southeast façade, facing Burlingame Avenue. This façade would contain a lift-up garage door, and the southeast façade would feature one panel door for pedestrian access. Other proposed alterations to the site include the demolition of the existing pool equipment shed, located near the center of the rear lot line. The pool equipment would remain and would be surrounded by a new cedar fence, measuring 6’ tall. Two patios would be constructed adjacent to the pool. No changes are proposed within the front lawn apart from a Japanese maple that would be planted near the south corner of the lot. Interior The proposed project would involve extensive changes to the residence’s interior, involving the introduction of new interior doors; the construction of a new staircase; and remodeling of the existing first-story kitchen and upper-story bathroom. Interior alterations to residential buildings are Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -15- generally considered acceptable with regard to CEQA; therefore, analysis of interior alterations is outside the scope of this document. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Standards) provide guidance for reviewing proposed work on historic properties, with the stated goal of making possible “a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.”7 The Standards are used by Federal agencies in evaluating work on historic properties. The Standards have also been adopted by local government bodies across the country for reviewing proposed rehabilitation work on historic properties under local preservation ordinances. The Standards are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of substantial changes to historic resources. Projects that comply with the Standards benefit from a regulatory presumption that they would have a less-than-significant adverse impact on a historic resource.8 Projects that do not comply with the Standards may cause either a substantial or less-than- substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. The Standards offer four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The four distinct treatments are defined as follows: Preservation: The Standards for Preservation “require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along with the building’s historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over time.” Rehabilitation: The Standards for Rehabilitation “acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing new uses while retaining the building’s historic character.” Restoration: The Standards for Restoration “allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods.” Reconstruction: The Standards for Reconstruction “establish a limited framework for recreating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes.” Typically, one set of standards is chosen for a project based on the project scope. In this case, the proposed project scope is seeking to alter and add to a historic building to continue its existing use. Therefore, the Standards for Rehabilitation will be applied. Standards for Rehabilitation The following analysis applies each of the applicable Standards for Rehabilitation to the proposed project at 1530 Burlingame Avenue. This analysis is based upon the proposed designs by Stewart Associates, dated 24 June 2014, as submitted to Page & Turnbull by the City of Burlingame. 7National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, accessed online 19 November 2013, http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/. 8 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(3). Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -16- Rehabilitation Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Discussion: The building at 1530 Burlingame Avenue was constructed as a single-family residence, and it does not appear to have served any additional purpose during its history. It will continue to be used as a single-family house; the proposed project would create additional interior bedroom and kitchen space, thus supporting its original residential use. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 1. Rehabilitation Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. Discussion: The proposed project would involve the removal of historic materials, particularly in areas where the rear and side additions are planned. Large areas of the existing exterior wall and wood shingle cladding would be removed from the northeast and northwest façades in order to accommodate proposed additions. Likewise, five original wood brackets would be removed from underneath the bargeboard of the rear façade. Existing additions on the rear façade, however, are not considered significant, and most windows and doors located in exterior areas planned for demolition are not original to the residence. Four original wood-sash, nine-over-one windows—two located in the east half of the northeast façade (Figure 8), and a pairing on the southwest façade—would be replaced by new windows with eight-light configurations. The character-defining features that would be removed are not located on the residence’s primary façade, and the proposed project would not remove the residence’s most visible areas of shingle cladding, wood brackets, and wood-sash windows. The construction of an addition that projects from the residence’s northeast façade may alter the impression of the house’s solid, front-gabled massing. While the addition would project less than 4’ from the façade, its gabled roof would form a cross gable that would add observable bulk to the residence. Although some materials and features which contribute to the character of the building would be removed, the building would still convey its historic character in spite of these alterations. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 2. Rehabilitation Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties, will not be undertaken. Discussion: Proposed new construction has been designed to replicate the original design and materials of the residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue. The fabric of the addition would include wood shingle cladding and decorative wood brackets identical to those original features found on the existing building. New roof slopes on the gables of the planned addition would match the slopes of the roof of the original residence. Likewise, the garage that is proposed for the north corner of the lot would employ design features that are characteristic of Craftsman-style residential architecture from the main house’s date of construction: namely, exposed rafter tails, wood shingle siding, and wood brackets. However, the proposed project would not include elements from other historical properties and would not interfere with the building’s ability to be recognizable as a Craftsman-style residence constructed during the early twentieth century. Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -17- The proposed garage, however, would stand in the same location and would conform to the same architectural style as the original garage. It may not be clear, therefore, that the proposed garage would be a recent addition to the property. In spite of this issue, it is anticipated that the majority of elements of the proposed project would be discernible as recent alterations. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 3. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Discussion: The residence has experienced several previous alterations. These alterations include the construction of the attached carport (Figure 5) and rear additions (Figure 9); the installation of new windows and doors on the northwest and northeast façades; and the construction of the rear pool equipment shed (Figure 14). The residence was determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources for its embodiment of the Craftsman architectural style from the time it was constructed; therefore, no subsequent alterations to the building are considered to have acquired significance in their own right. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 4. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Discussion: The proposed project would result in the removal of certain materials and features that are characteristic of the Craftsman architectural style, for which the residence at 1530 Burlingame is a significant example. These features include wood shingle cladding, decorative brackets, exposed rafter tails, and wood-sash windows. The proposed project would not affect the most visible of these elements from the public right-of-way (Figure 2), and alterations would not overwhelm the building’s existing material palette. As a result, the residence would continue to be characterized by its original materials and features. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 5. Rehabilitation Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Discussion: The proposed project does not appear to involve the repair or replacement of deteriorated or missing features. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 6. Rehabilitation Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Discussion: It is not anticipated that the proposed project would involve the use of chemical or physical treatments that may affect the residence’s character-defining features. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 7. Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -18- Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Discussion: Excavation work would be required during the construction of the proposed rear addition and garage. If any archaeological material is encountered during this project, construction should be halted and the City of Burlingame’s standard procedures for treatment of archaeological materials should be adhered to. If standard procedures are followed in the case of an encounter with archaeological material, the proposed project would comply with Rehabilitation Standard 8. Rehabilitation Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and environment. Discussion: As previously discussed, the proposed project would involve new construction and alterations that would result in the removal of historic, character-defining features from the exterior of the residence. Most of the affected features, however, are located on the front façade or the most publically visible portions of the residence; proposed changes would not eliminate the most prominent examples of features that characterize the design of the property. Proposed new construction—including the new garage—is designed to imitate the Craftsman-style architectural elements that characterize the residence. The proposed addition and garage would feature wood-shingle siding, exposed rafter tails underneath eaves, and decorative brackets that are identical to elements that are original to the residence. These considerations ensure that new construction would be compatible in style with the existing building, but they may also result in some confusion over which elements are original. The addition, however, would be differentiated from the original volume of the building by its arrangement of eight-light windows, which provide a contrast to the residence’s original nine-over-one, two-sash windows. As windows on the northeast façade of the addition would be visible from the sidewalk, it is anticipated that the addition would be recognizable by the trained eye as a non-original component of the residence. Therefore, the proposed project generally complies with Rehabilitation Standard 9. Rehabilitation Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Discussion: The proposed side and rear addition would require a substantial amount of the residence’s exterior wall to be demolished. This includes the entire rear façade, although much of this façade has already been heavily altered due to a series of previous additions. Approximately half of the historic fabric on the northeast façade would be removed. If the proposed addition would be removed from the residence in the future, the building’s integrity would not be negatively affected. As the addition would not be located on the primary façade, its removal in the future would not affect the essential form of the property; in fact, it would restore the residence’s original roof form. In the case that the addition is removed, therefore, the residence would still convey its essential, character-defining form and would still retain the most visible examples of its historic features and materials. Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -19- Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 10. Summary of Standards Compliance As designed, the proposed project would comply with eight Standards (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10). Standards 6 and 7 are not applicable to the proposed project. The proposed alterations to the northeast, northwest, and southwest façades would result in the removal of character-defining features (namely original wood-sash windows, wood-shingle cladding, wood brackets, and exposed rafter tails), would add some bulk to the massing of the residence, and would not be substantially differentiated from the house’s existing fabric. The proposed project would primarily affect secondary façades, however, and overall it would be compatible with the residence’s character-defining form, materials, and features to the extent that it would not harmfully distract from the original construction. Consequently, the proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CEQA defines cumulative impacts as follows: “Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.9 Proposed new construction at the site does not appear to cause any cumulative impacts which in combination with other currently proposed projects or recently completed projects would compound or increase environmental impacts. On the residence itself, earlier alterations (such as the carport and existing rear additions) would be removed to accommodate the proposed addition and therefore would not lead to cumulative impacts on the integrity of the property. The neighborhood may be eligible as a historic district, though no formal district evaluation has been conducted and the City of Burlingame does not have an ordinance through which buildings or districts could be listed locally as historic resources. Several residences on Burlingame Avenue within one block of the subject property have alterations that are visible from the street. These include second-story additions to 1532 Burlingame Avenue (neighboring the subject property to the southwest) and 1517 Burlingame Avenue (located across Burlingame Avenue and four lots north of the subject property). The block also features residential buildings constructed following World War II: 1525 Burlingame Avenue, 1533 Burlingame Avenue, and 255 El Camino Real (a prominent apartment complex located at the intersection of Burlingame Avenue and El Camino Real). As no historic district surrounding 1530 Burlingame Avenue has been documented, the proposed project currently does not contribute to any cumulative impact as defined by CEQA. 9 CEQA Guidelines, Article 20, subsection 15355. Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -20- V. CONCLUSION The residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue was determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources in 2014 by Page & Turnbull, using State of California DPR 523A and 523B forms. The evaluation concluded that the building is significant as an excellent example of Craftsman-style residential architecture constructed within the early-twentieth-century residential subdivision of Burlingame Park. Therefore, the residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue is considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An addition is proposed at 1530 Burlingame Avenue, involving the removal of an existing carport and rear additions, as well as the construction of an addition on the residence’s northeast and northwest façades. Construction of a new detached garage is also planned. The proposed project was evaluated according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and was found to comply with all applicable Standards. Proposed new construction would be compatible with the existing residence and the overall integrity and historic character of the property would be retained. As a result, the proposed project does not appear to create an impact on the residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue for the purposes of CEQA. Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -21- VI. REFERENCES CITED National Park Service. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, accessed 19 November 2013, http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/. National Park Service. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997. Page & Turnbull. “1530 Burlingame Avenue,” California Department of Parks and Recreation 523A (Primary) and 523B (Building Structure and Object) Forms. June 2014. State of California Office of Historic Preservation. “Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for San Mateo County.” April 2012. State of California, California Environmental Quality Act, accessed 19 November 2013, http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/summary.html. Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -22- APPENDIX A: DPR 523 A & B FORMS, 2014 State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________ NRHP Status Code_____________________________________ Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________ Page _1_ of _12_ Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) P1. Other Identifier: 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date: 2012 *c. Address 1530 Burlingame Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number: 028 -283-70 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 1530 Burlingame Avenue is a two-and-one-half story, wood-frame, front-gabled residential building located on the north side of Burlingame Avenue between Occidental Avenue and El Camino Real. Built c. 1915 and designed in the Craftsman style, the building is set back approximately 35’ from the street on a rectangular lot measuring approximately 53’ x 136’. The building is rectangular in plan, approximately 35’ x 40’, with a front-gabled, enclosed porch projecting from the primary (southeast) façade, and a shed-roofed carport spanning the northeast façade. At the rear (northwest) façade, the first story includes an addition that projects approximately 10’ from the rear (northwest) of the building and is wider than the main mass of the building by approximately 3’ on either side: at the right (south), this addition is two stories. The residence has a concrete foundation and features a concrete stem wall that rises approximately two feet above grade. The building is clad in painted wood shingles, and the roof is covered in asphalt shingle roofing. Rafter tails and purlins are exposed at all eaves. Original windows are predominantly wood-sash, nine-over-one, single-hung with ogee lugs. The building has a grass front lawn and a swimming pool and pool shed in the back yard. (See continuation sheet.) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Photo: (view and date) View from southeast, 06/04/2014 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: c. 1915 (based on Burlingame water records) *P7. Owner and Address: Meagan and Christopher Schaefer 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 1000 Sansome St. San Francisco, CA 94108 *P9. Date Recorded: 06/04/2014 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”) None *Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (list) DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information P5a. Photo State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 2 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *P3a. Description (continued): The primary (southeast) façade (Figure 1) features a prominent glazed entrance porch at the right (east) half of the first story that projects toward Burlingame Avenue (Figure 2). The porch has a front-gabled roof that is supported at each corner by a tapered wood pier. The piers carry a milled wood lintel that spans the width of the porch and supports a pairing of purlins at each of its ends (Figure 3). At the center of the porch is a pair of ten-light wood doors, flanked by vertically oriented ten-light fixed wood windows and topped by a narrow transom window. Wood steps lead from the porch doors to a brick paved walk and are flanked by low walls clad in wood shingles. Within the porch, the primary entrance to the building is a multi-light wood door with a fixed, horizontally- oriented six-light window at right. The left (west) half of the first story features a three-sided angled bay with a shed roof (Figure 4). The front side of the bay includes two nine-over-one windows (Figure 5), and the sides have one nine-over-one window each. The second story of the primary façade features two groups of three nine-over-one windows. A four-light, fixed wood attic window is located within the gable and is flanked by wood louvered vents. Five ornamental, diagonally-braced wood brackets are located underneath the bargeboard on this façade. The northeast façade features the front porch at the far left (east), with a thirty-five-light fixed wood window at the first story and a small wood access door in the stem wall. The remainder of the first story of this façade is covered by the shed-roof carport (Figure 6) supported by three milled wood posts along its outer edge. The carport shelters a paved driveway that leads from Burlingame Avenue. Underneath the carport, the center of the façade includes a ten-light wood door accessed via a contemporary wood landing and steps (Figure 7), and, to the left of the door, a pair of four-light, apparently fixed wood windows. Between the first and second stories, left of center above the carport, is a nine-over-one window opening from the interior stair. The second story of the northeast façade contains a nine-over-one window at the left (east), two one-over-one single-hung wood-sash windows with textured glass and ogee lugs right of center, and two apparently fixed, single-light wood windows at the right (north) (Figure 8). A detached shed is located underneath the carport near the north corner of the residence (Figure 9). The shed features a wood panel door on its southeast façade. The rear (northwest) façade (Figure 10) includes an addition at the first-story that extends three feet past the width of the main mass of the building. This first-story addition includes an angled bay window at left (east) with two nine-over one windows; a pair of ten-light wood doors left of center; a fifteen-light fixed wood window right of center, and a ten-light wood door at far right (west) (Figure 11). The right (west) half of the first story includes a raised wood patio with a wood arbor, which is accessed via four wood steps. At the second story, at right (west) there is a hipped-roof second-story addition that extends slightly over the depth of the first story addition. This addition includes a small aluminum-sash sliding window at the far right (west) of its northwest façade and a wood ten-light door with vinyl screen door and vinyl sliding window with false muntins on its east façade (Figure 12). The left (east) half of the second story includes an apparently wood fifteen-light door and two fixed single-light wood windows, which face onto a balcony that sits atop the first-story wing. The balcony has a railing of wood balusters leading along its northwest edge. A small aluminum-sash sliding attic window is located at the center of the gable. As on the primary façade, five wood brackets are located underneath the bargeboard on this façade. The southwest façade (Figure 13) features a mortared brick chimney right of center that rises through the roof soffit (Figure 14). The base of the chimney features a hinged iron ashpit door. The first story features a nine-light fixed wood window at far right (south), an angled bay identical to the one on the primary façade (Figure 15) at center, and an aluminum-sash sliding window at far left (north), on the rear façade addition. The second story includes a nine-over-one window at far right (south), a nine-over-one window and small infilled single-light window at center, and a pairing of nine-over-one windows at far left (north). A hinged plywood door pairing is located in the stem wall at center, leading to a crawlspace underneath the house. The residence faces a grass lawn, which is separated from Burlingame Avenue by a concrete sidewalk and parking strip. The parking strip contains a mature London plane tree, which is similar to other trees of the same age that line both sides of the street on this block. A paved asphalt drive leads along the northeast edge of the lot and enters the carport. A mortared brick planting bed is located at the center of the front lawn, containing a young Japanese maple tree. The primary façade of the residence and the fence along the southwest edge of the lot are lined by similar planting beds, containing shrubs and low ornamental plantings. A hedgerow lines the northeast side of the lot, beside the asphalt drive. To the rear of the residence is a grass lawn with a swimming pool and raised soaking tub, installed in 1980 (Figure 16). The pool is surrounded by a concrete walk with brick edging. At the north corner of the lot is a plywood and wood frame pool house, likely built at the same time as the pool. The pool house features a pairing of strap-hinged X-braced plywood doors, a wood door with four-light window, and sliding vinyl window with false muntins. Within the rear lawn, beds with ornamental plantings are located alongside the rear fence and the northwest façade of the residence. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 3 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 1. Southeast and northeast façades, viewed facing west. Page & Turnbull, June 2014. Figure 2. Front porch, viewed facing north. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 3. Detail of lintel and purlin construction on front porch. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 4. Oriel bay on southeast facade. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 5. Detail of typical wood-sash nine-over-one window. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 4 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 6. Northeast façade and attached carport, viewed facing west. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 7. Door and windows on northeast façade between kitchen and carport. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 8. Fenestration on second story of northeast façade. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 9. Detached shed underneath carport. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 10. Northwest façade, viewed facing southeast. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 11. Patio and arbor adjoining the west half of the southeast façade. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 5 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 12. Northeast side of second-story addition on the rear façade. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 13. Second story of southwest and southeast façades, viewed facing north. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 14. Chimney and windows near south corner of the southwest façade. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 15. Oriel bay and second-story windows on the southwest facade. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 Figure 16. Rear lawn, containing swimming pool and pool house, viewed facing north. Page & Turnbull, June 2014 State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 6 of 12 *NRHP Status Code__3CS_________________________ *Resource Name or # 1530 Burlingame Avenue B1. Historic name: None B2. Common name: None B3. Original Use: Single family residence B4. Present use: Single family residence *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The residence at 1530 Burlingame Ave. was constructed c. 1915. Additions and alterations with known permit dates include: 1976: second-story rear addition constructed on northwest façade (Permit #W687); 1980: swimming pool and equipment installed to the rear of the house (Permit #2032); 1983: carport and shed constructed on northeast façade, and rear garage possibly demolished (Permit #5426); 1989: Kitchen interior remodeled, exterior door added between kitchen and carport, and two single-hung windows replaced with fixed window pairing (Permit #8770); 1991: Masonry fireplace removed, and new chimney constructed (Permit #11575); 2002: Roof replaced (Permit #632). Other apparent alterations that remain undated include the enclosure of the front porch (after 1969). *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________ *B8. Related Features: none B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: same *B10. Significance: Theme Residential architecture____________ Area Burlingame Park ___________________ Period of Significance c. 1915 (date of construction) Property Type Single family residence Applicable Criteria__3_____ (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Historic Context: City of Burlingame The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given by Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold ove r 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted to Ralston, and eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this pe riod, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small- scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. (See continuation sheet.) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: (see continuation sheet) B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Jonathon Rusch, Page & Turnbull *Date of Evaluation: June 12, 2014 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Sketch Map Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2014. Edited by author. (This space reserved for official comments.) State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 7 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *B10. Significance (continued): Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910 annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to th e City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107. Burlingame Park Neighborhood The residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. The Rancho was inherited by Joseph Henry Poett and later sold to Anson Burlingame in 1866 and to William C. Ralston in 1872. Ralston began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Hall’s early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands. Newlands commissioned Hall’s cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan “centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree-lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents” (Brechin 1999, 94). The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club, and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911. Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded by El Camino Real to the northeast; Howard, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the southeast; Pepper Avenue to the southwest; and Bellevue Avenue to the northwest. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of about fifty years. 1530 Burlingame was constructed approximately one decade after the subdivision was platted. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s, and the majority of the residences in the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. Many of these were designed in high architectural styles and were grander in scale than the earlier residences. By 1949, nearly all of the approximately 250 lots in Burlingame Park were developed. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth century building boom, to the present day. The house at 1530 Burlingame Avenue is a representative example of the residential building styles constructed in Burlingame Park during its early years. 1530 Burlingame Avenue In 1905, the Burlingame Realty Company purchased the lot that currently contains 1530 Burlingame Avenue, as well as another lot in the Burlingame Park subdivision, for a total price of $10. This was the same year that the subdivision was platted. The grantor of these lots was Marie Hastings of San Francisco. The associated deed stipulated that the Burlingame Realty Company must approve the design of any house constructed on the lot. The deed also required that any subsequent resi dence have at least a 20’ setback from the street, and that no offensive commerce or sales of liquor or were permitted on the property. According to th e document, “The main object of the aforesaid conditions and covenants is to prevent such use of the prem ises hereby granted as might tend to diminish either the valuable or pleasurable enjoyment of the rest of said Burling ame Park or Burlingame Rancho” (“It Was a Big Deal in Those Days!” n.p.). The lot appears to have remained empty prior to 1913: the Sanborn Fire Insurance map that was printed that year captures only the north corner of the subject lot, and no garage is visible there (Figure 17). More than half of the lots in downtown Burlingame contained buildings at this time. Yet Burlingame Park, the residential neighborhood south of downtown across Main County Road (present-day El Camino Real), was sparsely developed. According to the Sanborn map, only two houses stood on the present-day block of 1530 Burlingame Avenue. The residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue was likely constructed c. 1915. No original building permits have been located for the residence, so its architect, builder, and original owner remain unknown.1 This potential date of construction is based on Burlingame water records, which show that the property was connected to the municipal water supply on July 10, 1915. (The city’s water supply was introduced in 1913, so all buildings constructed prior to that year have water records dated 1913 .) 1 In 1926, a building permit was issued for an $8,000 project at 1530 Burlingame Avenue. The owner identified on the permit, James Cortez, is listed in the 1927 Burlingame city directory at 1529 Burlingame Avenue (directly across the street from the subject property). This building permit, then, appears to be associated with the construction or expansion of a neighboring house. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 8 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L The earliest known occupants of the residence are William and Hillary Edwards. William Edwards is listed at 1530 Burlingame Avenue in the 1918 San Mateo, Burlingame, and Hillsborough city directory, which specifies his occupation as an “S.S. agent, S.F.” Although the “S.S.” portion of Edwards’s title is unclear, “S.F.” suggests that he commuted into San Francisco on the railroad, as did many Burlingame residents during the first decades of the twentieth century. According to the 1920 United States Census, William and Hillary Edwards remained in the residence that year with their two children, William Jr. and Katharyn. The census identified William Edwards’s occupation that year as a manager, with a notation of “Pac. R.,” possibly meaning the Southern Pacific Railroad. The residence appears in the next printed Sanborn map, in 1921 (Figure 18). The map illustrates that at this time, the house consisted of the central rectangular volume with an unenclosed front porch, two projecting angled bays, and an addition that extends from only the north half of the rear façade, projecting slightly past the adjacent northeast facade. A one-car garage stood in the north corner of the lot. Five other houses had been constructed on the north side of Burlingame Avenue by this year, a nd nine houses total were located on the block. All had detached one-car garages. Julian C. Whitman, a stockbroker, and his wife Frances are listed at 1530 Burlingame Avenue in the 1925 Burlingame City Directory. The 1930 U.S. Census, conducted after the Whitmans had moved to West Poplar Avenue in San Mateo, indicate that the couple had four children at the time they lived at 1530 Burlingame Avenue. The 1927 Burlingame city directory lists Earle B. Terry, a Maytag salesman, as the occupant of the residence. Between 1929 an d 1932, directories identify the occupant as his wife (likely widow), Mrs. Flora Terry. No occupation is specified. Maurice W. Goldsmith, who worked in insurance, occupied the residence in 1936. James Naylor, an attorney, lived in the house with his wife Kathryn between 1939 and 1953. According to the household’s entry in the 1940 U.S. Census, the Naylors were both born in Washington, D.C., and had two children, Nancy (6 years old) and Thomas (2). The Census also recorded the family’s servant, Mayme Richards, a 45-year-old native of Nebraska. The fact that Richards was recorded at this address suggests that she lived with the Naylor family in their residence. The Naylors did not own their residence at this time, and instead they paid $75 monthly in rent. The owner of the property remains unknown. The next available city directory, published in 1958, lists Robert and Clalya Woolsey as the residents of 1530 Burlingame Avenue. Robert Woolsey was a department manager at the Kilburg Corporation. The residence was put on the market in 1967 by Nixon Elliott, a local real estate broker. Based on a photograph from this year in the broker’s records (Figure 19), the front and northeast façades of the residence resemble its current appearance. The wood shingle cladding does not appear to have yet been painted, and the front of the porch had not been enclosed with glazing and a paired door. The original one-car garage at the rear of the lot appears to have been expanded by this time to include a second gabled automobile bay. The residence was placed on the market again two years later, and it sold for $33,000. A photograph associated with the property listing that year (Figure 20) suggests that no substantial changes had occurred since 1967. The listing described the house as having five bedrooms, two baths, and a two-car garage. The listing called the house “mildly updated, light and airy with a ‘hoary charm.’” In the 1969 sale, the residence may have been granted to Mary Thurston, who was the owner of the property in 1972. That year, ownership transferred to Daniel Thurston, presumably her husband. Daniel Thurston, a local building contractor who purchased Millbrae Lumber Company with a partner in the early 1980s, was a long-term resident of 1530 Burlingame Avenue. He had two children, Daniel and Maryann; he later remarried and had two sons with his wife Lucille. Daniel Thurston was an active community member and belonged to the Green Hills Country Club and Sausalito Yacht Club. Under the Thurstons’ ownership, the residence received a serie s of updates. The City of Burlingame issued a permit in 1976 for a “2nd story” costing $3,500—likely the two-story addition on the rear façade. In 1980, the family added the rear swimming pool and affiliated equipment for $7,500. The shed-roofed carport, measuring 12’ x 38’, was added to the northeast façade in 1983, at a cost of $3,000. (The two-car garage at the rear of the property was likely demolished at this time.) The Thurstons remodeled the interior of their kitchen in 1989, which involved the addition of an exterior door near the north corner of the house, leading from the kitchen to the carport. Next to the door, two single-hung windows were replaced by a pairing of fixed wood-sash windows. The brick masonry chimney was replaced in 1991 by United Chimney Service, and the house was re-roofed in 2002. The doors and windows on the southeast side of the porch, facing Burlingame Avenue, remain undated. Daniel Thurston died in 2010; the following yea r the residence was transferred to a trust in Lucille Th urston’s name. In 2014, the property sold to Christopher and Meagan Schaefer. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 9 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L The following list of occupants of the property and their approximate dates of occupancy was gathered from city directories, deeds held by San Mateo County, and information provided by the Burlingame Historical Society. Other occupants are unknown: William and Hillary Edwards (1918-1920) Julian C. and Frances Whitman (1924-1925) Earle B. Terry (1927) Mrs. F.O. Terry (1929-1932) Maurice W. Goldsmith (1936-1937) James M. and Kathryn C. Naylor (1939-1953) Robert and Clalya Woolsey (1958) Mary Thurston (1971-1972) Daniel Thurston (1972-1996) Daniel and Lucille Thurston (1996-2011) Lucille Thurston (2011-2014) Meaghan and Christopher Schaefer (2014-present) Figure 17. 1913 Sanborn insurance map, showing that the north corner of the subject lot was empty at this time. North is upper left. San Francisco Public Library/Digital Sanborn Maps, edited by the author Figure 18. 1921 Sanborn insurance map, showing that the residence and garage at 1530 Burlingame had been constructed by this year. North is up. San Francisco Public Library/Digital Sanborn Maps, edited by the author State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 10 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 19. Realty photograph of 1530 Burlingame Avenue, 1967 Burlingame Historical Society Figure 20. Realty photograph of 1530 Burlingame Avenue, 1969 Burlingame Historical Society Evaluation: Significance The residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue is not currently listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (Californi a Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed locally. The residence at 1530 Burlingame does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Registers under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house does express contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of the Burlingame Park subdivision, but it would best convey this significance as a contributing resource within a historic district. Such a district evaluation is outside the scope of this report (see note below). The property, therefore, does not rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for register inclusion under Criterion 1. The residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons) for its association with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. None of the identified owners or occupants appear to have made important contributions to national, state, or local history that meet the State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 11 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L significance threshold for historic register inclusion. Therefore, the property does not rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for register inclusion under Criterion 2. The residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue does appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master. While the architect and builder are unknown and cannot be considered masters, the building displays an exemplary collection of architectural features closely associated with the Craftsman style. The Craftsman style was exceptionally popular in the United States between approximately 1905 and 1930, as it was available to a large audience across social classes. Plans were widely disseminated by pattern books and manufacturers’ publications, and industrially milled construction materials could be shipped throughout the country by rail. At the same time, the style expressed aesthetic refinement and gave the impression of hand-worked features, in line with the earlier Arts and Crafts movement, that suggested these buildings were expensive to produce. 1530 Burlingame Avenue, built at the height of popularity for the Craftsman style, has a an exemplary collection of Craftsman-associated features: shingle siding, front porch with tapered piers, wood-sash windows with ogee lugs, exposed rafter tails underneath broad eaves, and decorative roof brackets on the primary and rear facades. Additionally, the residence exhibits the Craftsman style’s emphasis on horizontality, conveyed through its low roof pitches, overhanging eaves, and groupings of windows on the primary façade. 1530 Burlingame Avenue is a very good example of a Craftsman-style house within an early twentieth-century residential subdivision; it is therefore individually significant for its architectural merit and appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 1530 Burlingame Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. Integrity The residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association. It remains in its original location. Alterations to the exterior of the residence have largely occurred on the rear façade. Those that have not—including the addition of an attached carport and the enclosure of the front porch—do not detrimentally detract from the residence’s integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. While the exterior of the residence was painted after 1969, the exterior cladding remains clearly identifiable as wood shingles. The chimney has been reconstructed, but its materials (brick) and method construction (mortar masonry) are appropriate to the age of the residence. Changes in the immediate landscape, such as the rear swimming pool and contemporary planting beds, somewhat affect the residence’s integrity of setting. The surrounding Burlingame Park neighborhood, however, is still characterized by single-family homes and curvilinear, tree-lined streets appropriate to a 1910s/1920s residential subdivision. As such, the building has integrity of setting, feeling, and association. Overall, the property retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance as an outstanding Craftsman-style home within an early residential subdivision in Burlingame. Character Defining Features: - Box-like massing with prominent street-facing gable; - Gabled front porch with tapered piers and low walls alongside entry stairs; - Projecting three-sided bays at the primary (southeast) and southwest façades; - Exposed rafter tails underneath eaves; - Wood shingle cladding; - Diagonally-braced wood brackets underneath bargeboards on primary and rear façades; - Original wood-sash windows, particularly nine-over-one single-hung windows with ogee lugs; - Exposed lintel and paired purlin structure of porch Conclusion 1530 Burlingame Avenue appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3. The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “3CS” has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was “found eligible for California Register as an individual property through survey evaluation.” This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth-century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood’s eligibili ty as a historic district. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 12 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *B12. References: Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. Building Permit Records, 1530 Burlingame Avenue, City of Burlingame, CA. Burlingame City Directories. Burlingame Historical Society files. Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: B urlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004. “It Was a Big Deal in Those Days!” Splinters, San Mateo-Burlingame Board of Realtors, May 7, 1971. McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. “Millbrae Lumber Company to Close,” The Daily Journal, September 28, 2011, available http://archives.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=200137. Parcel History, San Mateo County Hall of Records, Redwood City. United States Federal Census records: 1920, 1930, 1940. San Mateo County Assessor Records. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1913, 1921. Historic Resource Evaluation Part II 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California September 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -35- APPENDIX B: PROPOSED PROJECT DRAWINGS, 2014 1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94111 415.362.5154 / 415.362.5560 fax 2401 C Street, Suite B Sacramento, California 95816 916.930.9903 / 916.930.9904 fax 417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211 Los Angeles, California 90013 213.221.1200 / 213.221.1209 fax ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & RESEARCH MATERIALS CONSERVATION www.page-turnbull.com PROJECT LOCATION 325 Chapin Lane Item No. 8g Action Item Item No. 8g Action Item City of Burlingame Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit Address: 325 Chapin Lane Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 Request: Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new attached garage. Applicant and Property Owner: Nick Rogers APN: 028-311-030 Architect: Chris Spaulding Lot Area: 17,444 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation (Part I) was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated February 15, 2013. The results of the evaluation concluded that 325 Chapin Avenue is eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 2 (Persons) for the associations with Francis B. Loomis, and Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction using State of California DPR 523A and 523B forms. Page & Turnbull prepared an analysis of the potential impacts of the addition as originally proposed under the Secretary of the Interior’s Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and pursuant to CEQA, dated August 29, 2014 (Part II). The results of the analysis concluded that “the proposed project was determined not to comply with all of the Standards, due to its impact on the building’s massing and its lack of architectural differentiation between original and new elements. Page & Turnbull has proposed project improvement measures to assist in reducing project-specific impacts, in order to allow new construction to be visually distinct from existing features. An additional recommendation offers guidance on mitigating the impact of the proposed circular driveway on the residence’s immediate setting. These measures would assist the project to be in compliance with the Standards , so that new construction can complement—but not replicate—this historic Craftsman-style residence.” These recommendations have been incorporated into the project as currently proposed and are discussed later in the staff report. Because there was a potential impact on historic resources, an Initial Study was prepared for the project. However, based upon the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project impacts can be addressed by a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the Initial Study did not identify any adverse impacts which could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation (please refer to the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 577-P). The purpose of the present review is to hold a public hearing and evaluate that this conclusion, based on the initial study, facts in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, public comments and testimony received at the hearing, and Planning Commission observation and experience, are consistent with the finding of no significant environmental impact. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 325 Chapin Lane 2 Project Description: The existing two and one-half story house contains 4,217 SF (0.24 FAR) of floor area and has four bedrooms (the existing study room on the first floor qualifies as a bedroom since it is 70 SF in area and has a minimum dimension of 7’-0”). With this application, the applicant is proposing to demolish a previous addition at the rear of the house completed in the 1990’s because 1) the applicant feels that the addition is not compatible with the existing house and 2) the roof leaks at the scuppers along the perimeter of the addition. Please refer to the applicant’s letter, date stamped April 23, 2014, for additional background and explanation of the proposed project. The applicant is proposing a 1,399 SF first floor addition, primarily along the right side and rear of the house, which includes enlarging the existing house and a new attached garage. A new covered porch (408 SF) is proposed at the rear of the house. This application also includes adding 456 SF to the existing second floor. With the proposed addition, the floor area will increase to 6,480 SF (0.37 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 6,682 SF (0.38 FAR). The proposed project is 202 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The existing property is nonconforming in off-street parking since there are no covered parking spaces on-site; only uncovered parking spaces currently exist on the site. A detached two-car garage for the house did exist at one time, however it was located on a separate lot behind 325 Chapin Lane (325 Chapin Lane once contained four legally subdivided lots, two lots on Chapin Lane and two lots on Pepper Avenue). It appears from records that the detached garage was demolished in 1987 when two new homes were built on the lots fronting Pepper Avenue. With the addition, the number of potential bedrooms will increase from four to five. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The applicant is proposing to build a new attached garage with two code-compliant spaces (24’-0” wide x 20’-0” deep clear interior dimensions); and one uncovered space in the driveway. Planning staff would note that the garage is large enough to accommodate up to two additional covered parking spaces (for a total of four covered parking spaces) but these are not included in the total parking count since they would be in a tandem arrangement. Covered parking may not be provided in tandem configuration if it is intended to be counted towards required parking, but could be allowed as additional parking above and beyond the minimum required. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Mitigated Negative Declaration, a determination that with mitigated measures there will be no significant environmental effects as a result of this project;  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2) and (6)); and  Special Permit for an attached two-car garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)). Changes to the Project to Comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: The Historic Resource Evaluation (Part II) prepared by Page & Turnbull notes that “while the project, as proposed, would create consistency across the facades and between old and new construction, such consistency is so seamless that it would not allow the proposed construction to be differentiated from the original building. Guidelines for the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties recommend that new construction employ a distinct but sympathetic architectural vocabulary so that it complements but is not confused with original elements.” Page and Turnbull recommended that the exterior cladding and design elements of the new construction not exactly follow the design of the origina l building, though they should remain compatible. New work should follow guidance provided by the National Park Service: Design for the new work may be contemporary or may reference design motifs from the historic building. In either case, it should always be clearly differentiated from the historic building and be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relationship of solids to voids, and color. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 325 Chapin Lane 3 In order to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the following modifications were recommended for the project:  The exterior cladding should have slightly different proportions, patterns, textures, or materials, so that upon review it is apparent as an alteration. Subtle differentiation is encouraged. Over new construction, the property o wner could consider a different pattern of wood shingles that is not greatly d ifferent from what already exists on the original house—for instance, one that includes courses of shingles that are similar in height to those of the existing cladding, but with narrower intermediate courses inserted. It is not anticipated that these additional courses would substantially change the impression of the entire cladding system, but would have the advantage of subtly indicating that the addition is, in fact, an addition.  The decorative brackets within newly constructed gables should not appear identical to the house’s original brackets. Minor variations are recommended.  The two proposed gabled roofs on the front façade, as well as the proposed window box, should be eliminated from the design, as they are the most visible conjectural details within the proposed project. The measures outlined above would assist in distinguishing new construction from the existing residence by striving for “compatible ye t differentiated” materials. This action would allow new elements to appear separate from and compatible with the character-defining design elements of the building. In addition, Page & Turnbull recommended the following adjustment to the proposed project in order to better adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:  It is recommended that the proposed circular driveway be removed, or else be reduced in footprint as much as possible to the extent that the property owners can still accomplish their needs. W hile the proposed driveway would not detrimentally affect the overall integrity of the property, this recommended measure would help to maintain the residence’s integrity of setting and the general character of the streetscape. Since preparation of the Historic Resource Evaluation (Part II), the project plans were revised as follows to incorporate the recommended improvement measures, which would reduce potential impacts to historical resources to less than significant under CEQA: 1. The pattern on the exterior cladding (shingles) on the proposed first and second story addition and new attached garage has a slightly different pattern that the existing shingle pattern. 2. The decorative brackets on the proposed additions and new attached garage consist of 6x6 out-looker beams with no braces, which are different in design than the existing decorative brackets. 3. The previously proposed gabled roofs on the front façade and window box were eliminated from the design. 4. The material of the proposed circular driveway has been changed from asphalt to grass pavers to reduce any impact to the residence’s integrity of setting and the general character of the streetscape. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. This space intentionally left blank. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 325 Chapin Lane 4 325 Chapin Lane Lot Area: 17,444 SF Plans Date Stamped: September 18, 2014 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 34’-9” 36’-6” 15'-0" or block average (2nd flr): (attached garage): 34’-9” n/a no change 59’-6” 20'-0" or block average 35’-0” for double-wide door Side (left): (right): 17'-4" 31’-11” 26'-0” 7’-0” 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 73’-2” 99’-8” 63’-5” 80’-8” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2083 SF 11.9% 3890 SF 22.2% 40% is 6977 SF, however the lot coverage cannot exceed 6682 SF since this is the maximum allowed FAR (see below) FAR: 4217 SF 0.24 FAR 6480 SF 0.37 FAR 6682 SF 1 0.38 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 5 --- Off-Street Parking: 0 covered ² 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 2 covered (24'W x 20'D clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 18' for existing) 2 covered (20' x 20’ clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 18' for existing) Building Height: 33’-2” 28’-3” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 ¹ (0.32 x 14,777 SF) + 1,100 SF = 6,682 SF (0.38 FAR) ² Existing nonconforming off-street parking. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study meeting on April 28, 2014, the Commission had several questions and comments regarding the proposed project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar. Please refer to the attached April 28, 2014 Planning Commission minutes for a list of concerns and comments regarding this project. The applicant submitted a response letter, dated September 29, 2014, and revised plans, date stamped September 18, 2014, to address the Planning Commission’s questions and comments. Please refer to the applicant’s response letter for a summary of changes made to the project in response to the Commission’s concerns. In response to the concern raised regarding the circular driveway in the front yard, the applicant has replaced the previously proposed paved circular driveway with a lawn using a “Grass-Pave” geotextile turf system (see attached informational sheet provided by the applicant). It is a porous pavement system which allows one to drive a vehicle on it while allowing grass to grow through. Only the grass is visible as the turf system is laid under the grass. Since the applicant notes that the circular driveway will only be used for circulation and not parking, a Variance for parking within the front setback is not required. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 325 Chapin Lane 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration: Because there was a potential impact on historic resources, the proposed project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission held an environmental scoping session for this project on April 28, 2014. An Initial Study was prepared by the Planning Division staff. As presented the Mitigated Negative Declaration identified issues that were "less than significant with mitigation incorporation" in the area of cultural resources. Based upon the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project impacts can be addressed by a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the Initial Study did not identify any adverse impacts which could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation (please refer to the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 577-P). The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for 20 days for public review on September 24, 2014. The 20- day review period ends on October 14, 2014; as of the printing date of this staff report (October 9, 2014), no comments have been submitted on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Required Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. This space intentionally left blank. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 325 Chapin Lane 6 Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report and within the Negative Declaration. Affirmative action on the following items should be taken separately by resolution including conditions from the staff report and/or that the commissioners may add. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Design Review. 3. Special Permit. Please note that the conditions below include mitigation measures taken from the mitigated negative declaration (shown in italics). If the Commission determines that these conditions do not adequately address any potential significant impacts on the environment, then an Environmental Impact Report would need to be prepared for this project. The mitigations will be placed on the building permit as well as recorded with the property. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 18, 2014, sheets A1 through A9; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s March 20, 2014 and January 16, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s March 20, 2014 and January 28, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s February 4, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s January 21, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s April 28, 2014 and January 16, 2014 memos shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 325 Chapin Lane 7 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Cultural Resources 14. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out. 15. If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame. 16. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 325 Chapin Lane 8 excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Nick Rogers, applicant and property owner Chris Spaulding, architect Attachments: April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Response Letter submitted by the applicant, dated September 29, 2014 Application to the Planning Commission Applicant’s Letter of Explanation and Photographs, date stamped April 23, 2014 Special Permit Application Photographs of Neighborhood Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 3, 2014 Aerial Photo Separate Attachments: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study (ND-577-P), dated September 24, 2014 325 Chapin Lane, Historical Resource Evaluation (Part I) prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., date stamped February 15, 2013. 325 Chapin Lane, Historical Resource Evaluation (Part II) prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., date stamped August 29, 2014. CITY OF BURLINGAME 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 To: Interested Individuals From: City of Burlingame County Clerk of San Mateo Community Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-577-P) Project Title: 325 Chapin Lane, Addition to Existing Single Family Dwelling Project Location: 325 Chapin Lane, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The proposal includes a first and second story addition to the existing single family dwelling and a new attached garage at 325 Chapin Lane, zoned R-1. The proposed house and attached garage would cover 22.2% (3,890 SF) of the 17,444 SF lot, where 40% (6,977 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 6,480 SF (0.37 FAR) where 6,682 SF (0.38 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The new attached garage (20’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) would provide two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is subject to CEQA because on based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. An historic survey has been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that it is not eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places. 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 Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A negative declaration is prepared for a project when the initial study has identified no potentially significant effect on the environment, and there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project 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, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has prepared a Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010. As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on September 24, 2014. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the end of the 20-day review on October 14, 2014. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination set forth in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing to: City of Burlingame Community Development Department – Planning Division. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period described above. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 325 Chapin Lane, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been tentatively scheduled for October 14, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: September 24, 2014 Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 325 CHAPIN LANE INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. Project Title: 325 Chapin Lane, Addition to Existing Single Family Dwelling and New Attached garage 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: William Meeker, Community Development Director (650) 558-7250 4. Project Location: 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California 94010 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Nick Rogers 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 6. General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1 APN: 028-311-030 8. Description of the Project: The proposal includes a first and second story addition to the existing single family dwelling and a new attached garage at 325 Chapin Lane, zoned R-1. The proposed house and attached garage would cover 22.2% (3,890 SF) of the 17,444 SF lot, where 40% (6,977 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 6,480 SF (0.37 FAR) where 6,682 SF (0.38 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The new attached garage (20’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) would provide two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. A Historic Resource Evaluation (Part I) was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated February 15, 2013. The results of the evaluation concluded that 325 Chapin Avenue is eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 2 (Persons) for the associations with Francis B. Loomis, and Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction using State of California DPR 523A and 523B forms. Page & Turnbull prepared an analysis of the potential impacts of the addition as originally proposed under the Secretary of the Interior’s Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and pursuant to CEQA, dated September 11, 2014 (Part II). The results of the analysis concluded that “the proposed project was determined not to comply with all of the Standards, due to its impact on the building’s massing and its lack of architectural differentiation between original and new elements. Page & Turnbull has proposed project improvement measures to assist in reducing project-specific impacts, in order to allow new construction to be visually distinct from existing features. An additional recommendation offers guidance on mitigating the impact of the proposed circular driveway on the residence’s immediate setting. These measures would assist the project to be in compliance with the Standards, so that new construction can complement—but not Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane replicate—this historic Craftsman-style residence.” These recommendations are discussed later in the Initial Study and have been incorporated into the project as currently proposed. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the Burlingame Park No. 2 Subdivision, in the southern portion of Burlingame west of El Camino Real. The original house on the parcel (built in 1906) remains on the property today. While few major alterations have been made to the house since its construction, an enclosed porch was added at the rear of the house in 1936 and was later replaced with a one-story addition that currently remains.. All of the properties in this subdivision, as well as neighboring subdivisions were included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. This area is made up entirely of single family residential properties. The Town of Hillsborough lies one block to the west of the subject property and the Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies two blocks to the east of the subject property. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: There are no permits required from other public agencies. However, San Mateo County is a responsible agency. A building permit is required from the Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 5 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion The site currently contains a two and one-half story single family dwelling; there is no existing carport or garage on the site to provide covered parking. The proposed project consists of demolishing a previous addition at the rear of the house completed in the 1990’s because 1) the applicant feels that the addition is not compatible with the existing house and 2) the roof leaks at the scuppers along the perimeter of the addition. The project includes a 1,399 SF first floor addition, primarily along the right side and rear of the house, which includes enlarging the existing house and a new attached garage. A new covered porch (408 SF) is proposed at the rear of the house. The project also includes adding 456 SF to the existing second floor. The project is subject to residential Design Review to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed house and attached garage would cover 22.2% (3,890 SF) of the 17,444 SF lot, where 40% (6,977 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 6,480 SF (0.37 FAR) where 6,682 SF (0.38 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The height of the proposed addition, as measured from average top of curb to top of roof ridge, will be 28’-3” where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed. The first and second story addition will be set back 63’-5” and 80’-8”, respectively, from the rear property line where 15’-0” is the minimum required to the first floor and 20’-0” is the minimum required to the second floor. The new attached garage will be set back 59’-6” from the front property line where 35’-0” is the minimum required to an attached garage with a double-wide door. Exterior materials on the existing house include an asphalt shingle roof, shingle siding, wood eave brackets and a brick chimney. The proposed exterior materials on the first and second floor addition would include shingles, containing a slightly differentiated patter than the existing shingles, and wood out-looker beams. Exterior lighting provided on the lot will be required to conform to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be directed onto the site. With the proposed placement of the addition, two new landscape trees (three existing landscape trees to remain), and a row of Pittosporum hedges along the right side property line, views from surrounding properties will be minimally impacted. The neighborhood consists of a variety of styles, most of which are two-story dwellings. The subject property will be consistent with the development in this area. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 6 While the project has the potential to generate an incremental increase in light generated on the site compared to existing conditions, the project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area since the house would be screened by other existing houses and existing and proposed vegetation and trees. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 – Electrical Code, Burlingame, California, 2010 edition. Project plans date stamped September 18, 2014. Site Visit, April 2014. This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 7 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 2. AGRICULTURE 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site does not include active agricultural uses, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use and would have no effect on farmland or any property subject to a Williamson Act contract. Mitigation Measures: None Required Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Project plans date stamped September 18, 2014. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 8 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No 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) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion The proposed application is for construction of a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling and a new attached two-car garage. While this project will accommodate a larger dwelling unit for habitation, the change in emissions is insignificant. The subject property is zoned for low-density residential development and with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction, the proposed project will not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. Demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 9 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected wetlands, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion The site currently contains an existing single family residence. There are three existing landscape trees on the property, including 4-inch and 5-inch diameter Oak trees and an unidentified 12-inch landscape tree; these existing trees are proposed to remain. In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with a single-family residence is required to provide a minimum of one, 24-inch box-size minimum, non-fruit tree, for every 1,000 SF of habitable space. With the proposed project, a total of five landscape trees (existing and new) are required on the subject property. The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements. The landscape plan indicates that the two, 24-inch box size Crape Myrtle tees will be planted in the front yard. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 10 Sources City of Burlingame, Parks Division Memorandum, dated January 28, 2014. The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 – Zoning, Burlingame, California Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game. Project plans date stamped September 18, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 11 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 5. 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 a unique 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? Discussion The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation (Part I) was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated February 15, 2013. Originally constructed c. 1906, 325 Chapin Lane was determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources in 2013 by Page & Turnbull, using State of California DPR 523A and 523B forms. The evaluation concluded that the residence is significant as an ornate example of Craftsman-style residential architecture within the early-twentieth-century residential subdivision of Burlingame Park, and for conveying the life of Francis Loomis, a nationally-known political figure during the first half of the twentieth century and a longtime resident of the house. Therefore, 325 Chapin Lane is considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Page & Turnbull prepared an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed addition under the Secretary of the Interior’s Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and pursuant to CEQA, dated September 11, 2014 (Part II). The results of the analysis, based on the project as originally submitted, concluded that “the proposed project was determined not to comply with all of the Standards, due to its impact on the building’s massing and its lack of architectural differentiation between original and new elements. Page & Turnbull proposed project improvement measures to assist in reducing project-specific impacts, in order to allow new construction to be visually distinct from existing features. An additional recommendation offers guidance on mitigating the impact of the proposed circular driveway on the residence’s immediate setting. These measures would assist the project to be in compliance with the Standards, so that new construction can complement—but not replicate—this historic Craftsman-style residence.” These recommendations were incorporated into the project as currently proposed, and are discussed later in the Initial Study. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 12 The following is an excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation (Part II) that was prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc.: Rehabilitation Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Discussion: The proposed project does not change the use of the historic residence at 325 Chapin Lane; it will continue to be used as a single-family home. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 1. Rehabilitation Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. Discussion: As proposed, the project would involve the removal of historic materials, namely ornamental brackets and a wood panel door with diamond-muntin window at the west façade, and wood shingles from exterior areas at the north and west facades where the garage and rear addition are currently planned. These features are located on secondary facades, however. It is therefore not expected that the removal of these features would cause a significant impact to the property’s historic character. Other features that would be removed or covered by new construction—windows, doors, and projections—are not original to the building. In addition, the project would modify the relatively solid and compact massing of the building, typical of Craftsman residences. The proposed four-car garage would form a prominent projecting volume off the northwest corner of the residence; however, it is set back from the front façade and would have only two automobile bays facing Chapin Lane, thus minimizing its visual impact. The rear two-story addition may also add observable bulk to the residence, but its location on a secondary façade lessens its impact. The widening of the one-story projection at the north corner would not significantly alter the historic massing of the house. The proposed circular driveway would not have a direct impact on the significant architecture of the building, though the feature would affect the residence’s integrity of setting to an extent. The driveway would eliminate much of the front lawn, which contributes to the broader streetscape characteristic of early-twentieth-century residential subdivisions such as Burlingame Park. However, these changes to the property’s spaces and spatial relationships do not detrimentally affect the property’s overall historic character, and the intervention of the front drive is considered a reversible action. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 2. Rehabilitation Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties, will not be undertaken. Discussion: The proposed project strives to match newly constructed features with the existing exterior fabric of the residence. This includes wood shingle siding across all exterior walls of the proposed garage and rear addition to match the original cladding materials; similarly sloped roofs on new construction to match the roofs of the original residence; diagonally-braced wood brackets underneath the eaves on all newly constructed gables; two new gabled features and window box at the front façade to match existing features; and wood piers supporting the roof at the rear porch. By pursuing fidelity to the features, design, Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 13 and materials of the existing residence, new construction may create a false sense of history and give the impression that 325 Chapin Lane was originally constructed with an attached garage, rear two-story addition and surrounding porch, and total of three decorative gabled features at the front façade. Therefore, the proposed project is not in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 3. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Discussion: As designed, the proposed project would not affect any changes to 325 Chapin Lane that have acquired historic significance in their own right. Some changes have taken place since the residence was constructed, and several non-original features would be removed or significantly altered by the proposed project. These include the steel-sash window at the east end of the north façade; the one-story v-shaped addition and surrounding wood deck constructed at the rear façade; various projections and non-original windows and doors; and the two adjacent sheds. None of these elements appears to be age-eligible or to have acquired significance in its own right. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 4, as no non-original features of the residence have been found significant in their own right. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Discussion: As proposed, the project would affect select character-defining materials and features, such as exterior cladding, brackets, and windows. Significant elements at locations that are visible from Chapin Lane, particularly those on the front façade, will be retained. Therefore, the proposed project would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 5. Rehabilitation Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Discussion: As designed, the proposed project does not appear to involve replacement of deteriorated or missing features. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 6. Rehabilitation Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Discussion: As designed, the proposed project does not appear to introduce chemical or physical treatments to the residence at 325 Chapin Lane. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 7. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 14 Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measure will be undertaken. Discussion: The proposed project will include excavation work in advance of the construction of the rear addition, garage, and paved driveways. If any archaeological material is encountered during this project, construction should be halted and the City of Burlingame’s standard procedures for treatment of archeological materials should be adhered to. If standard procedures are followed in the case of an encounter with archaeological material, the proposed project will be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 8. Rehabilitation Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and environment. Discussion: As discussed in Standard 2, the proposed project would remove historic features from the exterior of the residence in order to accommodate the construction of the garage and rear addition. Original wood shingles would be removed from areas where new construction would occur. The proposed project would affect historic features, such as wood brackets and original windows, although these are located on the rear façade and are not visible from Chapin Lane. The widening of the projection at the east end of the north façade would result in the removal of a non-original steel- sash window and would not significantly affect the overall massing of the residence. New construction employs Craftsman design vocabulary that imitates the existing fabric of the residence. Proposed wood shingle cladding and architectural features across the façades (wood brackets and projecting beams, porch support piers, window box) would be identical to original elements located elsewhere at the residence. New gabled features on the front façade, for instance, would directly reflect an original nearby gabled window hood. Proposed new construction would not be differentiated from the residence’s original character- defining features. Therefore, the proposed project is not in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 9. Rehabilitation Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Discussion: The proposed project would involve the construction of a garage and addition adjoining the historic residence and it is expected that original exterior walls would be removed during construction. In the case that the garage and rear addition are removed in the future, the residence’s integrity would be negatively affected. Recreation of the existing exterior walls would be needed if the additions are removed. As they are not located on the primary façade, however, their removal would not negatively affect the residence’s overall form and most prominent character-defining features. The proposed circular driveway and property fence could be removed in the future without negatively affecting the form and integrity of the residence. Likewise, more finely detailed aspects of the proposed projects—such as new gabled elements on the front façade—appear that they could be removed and cause minimal damage to the exterior cladding materials. Therefore, the proposed project will comply with Rehabilitation Standard 10. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 15 As designed, the proposed project will comply with six Standards (1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10) and will not comply with two Standards (3 and 9), reflecting proposed actions that would negatively impact the residence’s sense of historical development. Standards 6 and 7 are not applicable to the proposed project. In order to assess impacts pursuant to CEQA, compliance with the Standards must be either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ finding; a ‘yes’ finding would be based on compliance with all of the Standards. Because the additions proposed in the project fail to comply with Standards that relate to the building’s significance as an example of Craftsman-style residential architecture, the project as proposed does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.” The Historic Resource Evaluation (Part II) prepared by Page & Turnbull notes that “while the project, as proposed, would create consistency across the facades and between old and new construction, such consistency is so seamless that it would not allow the proposed construction to be differentiated from the original building. Guidelines for the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties recommend that new construction employ a distinct but sympathetic architectural vocabulary so that it complements but is not confused with original elements.” Page and Turnbull recommends that the exterior cladding and design elements of the new construction not exactly follow the design of the original building, though they should remain compatible. New work should follow guidance provided by the National Park Service: Design for the new work may be contemporary or may reference design motifs from the historic building. In either case, it should always be clearly differentiated from the historic building and be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relationship of solids to voids, and color. In order to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the following improvement measures were recommended for the project:  The exterior cladding should have slightly different proportions, patterns, textures, or materials, so that upon review it is apparent as an alteration. Subtle differentiation is encouraged. Over new construction, the property owner could consider a different pattern of wood shingles that is not greatly different from what already exists on the original house—for instance, one that includes courses of shingles that are similar in height to those of the existing cladding, but with narrower intermediate courses inserted. It is not anticipated that these additional courses would substantially change the impression of the entire cladding system, but would have the advantage of subtly indicating that the addition is, in fact, an addition.  The decorative brackets within newly constructed gables should not appear identical to the house’s original brackets. Minor variations are recommended.  The two proposed gabled roofs on the front façade, as well as the proposed window box, should be eliminated from the design, as they are the most visible conjectural details within the proposed project. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 16 The project improvement measure outlined above would assist in distinguishing new construction from the existing residence by striving for “compatible yet differentiated” materials. This action would allow new elements to appear separate from and compatible with the character-defining design elements of the building. In addition, Page & Turnbull recommends the following adjustment to the proposed project in order to better adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:  It is recommended that the proposed circular driveway be removed, or else be reduced in footprint as much as possible to the extent that the property owners can still accomplish their needs. While the proposed driveway would not detrimentally affect the overall integrity of the property, this recommended measure would help to maintain the residence’s integrity of setting and the general character of the streetscape. Since preparation of the Historic Resource Evaluation (Part II), the project plans were revised as follows to incorporate the recommended improvement measures, which would reduce potential impacts to historical resources to less than significant:  The pattern on the exterior cladding (shingles) on the proposed first and second story addition and new attached garage has a slightly different pattern that the existing shingle pattern.  The decorative brackets on the proposed additions and new attached garage consist of 6x6 out-looker beams with no braces, which are different in design than the existing decorative brackets.  The previously proposed gabled roofs on the front façade and window box were eliminated from the design.  The material of the proposed circular driveway has been changed from asphalt to grass pavers to reduce any impact to the residence’s integrity of setting and the general character of the streetscape. Based on relevant archaeological reports for the immediate area, there are no known cultural resources associated with the site and the proposed project will not create any cultural impacts to the affected area. Project related construction activities involving ground-disturbance during construction could result in significant impacts, if any unknown culturally significant sites are discovered. If remains were unearthed during project construction, damage to or destruction of significant archaeological remains would be a potentially significant impact. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains and/or traces of prehistoric plant and animal life exclusive of human remains or artifacts. Fossil remains, such as bones, teeth, shells, and wood, are found in geologic deposits (rock formations). The project vicinity has been developed and no known paleontological resources have been recorded. Because the proposed project would result in minimal excavation in bedrock conditions, significant paleontologic discovery would be unlikely. However, significant fossil discoveries can be made even in areas of supposed low sensitivity. The site has no known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. However, it is impossible to be sure about the presence or absence of human remains on a site until site excavation and grading occurs. The proposed project requires additional excavation for the building’s slab foundation, therefore there is a low likelihood that human remains will be encountered. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 17 Mitigation Measures: Potential impacts to archeological resources would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5a. In the event a paleontological resource is encountered during project activities, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5b would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. In the event human remains are encountered during project activities, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5c would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 5a: In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out. Mitigation Measure 5b: If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame. Mitigation Measure 5c: If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 18 Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 325 Chapin Lane, Historical Resource Evaluation (Part I) prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated February 15, 2013. 325 Chapin Lane, Historical Resource Evaluation (Part II) prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated July17, 2014. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 19 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No 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 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 liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion The site is flat and located in a semi-urban setting which has been developed with single family residential dwellings for the last 100 years, with most of the lots in vicinity over 6,000 SF in area. There will be less seismic exposure to people and equipment than at present, since the addition to the single family residence will comply with current California Building Code seismic standards. The site is approximately two miles from the San Andreas Fault. The project will be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 20 Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps, http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibility/, accessed March, 2014. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1981. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memorandum, dated January 16, 2014. Project Plans date stamped September 18, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 21 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards. SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant. The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:  For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities.  For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e. Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the screening criteria, Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 22 then the project’s air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. For single family dwellings, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes) set a screening threshold of 56 dwelling units for any individual single family residential project. The proposed project would be comprised of one unit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD Homepage, accessed May 2012). As such, lead agencies need to determine appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Lead agencies may rely on the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures. However, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air District’s 1999 Thresholds of Significance and to make determinations regarding the significance of an individual project’s air quality impacts based on substantial evidence in the record for that project. For this analysis, the City of Burlingame has determined that the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in the updated May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for project operations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are the most appropriate thresholds for use to determine air quality impacts of the proposed Project. First, Burlingame has used the May 2011 BAAQMD thresholds in previous environmental analyses under CEQA and found them to be reasonable thresholds for assessing air quality impacts. In addition, these thresholds are lower than the 1999 BAAQMD thresholds, and thus use of the thresholds in the May 2011 CEQA Guidelines is more conservative. Therefore, the city concludes these thresholds are considered reasonable for use in this analysis. In this case, the proposed project includes one unit. Given that the proposed project would fall well below the 56 dwelling units threshold specified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for single family residential development, it is not anticipated that the project will create significant operational GHG emissions. Climate Action Plan. Burlingame’s Climate Action Plan is designed to focus on near- and medium-term solutions to reduce its emissions. These program and policy recommendations were developed after careful consideration of the unique characteristics and demographics of the Burlingame community and the major sources of emissions from Burlingame’s Community Greenhouse Inventory. The five major focus areas include: energy use/green building, transportation/land use, solid waste, education/outreach and municipal programs. Energy efficiency and green building programs provide the fastest and most economical means to reduce emissions. The proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Burlingame’s Green Building Ordinance. Verification of compliance with Section A5.203.1.1 Tier 1 (15% above Title 24) of the Green Building Ordinance or LEED Silver shall be accepted as the methods of meeting compliance with this ordinance. By complying with the Green Building Ordinance, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment nor would it conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 23 Sources Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2011 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes). City of Burlingame, Climate Action Plan, Burlingame, California, June, 2009. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memorandum, dated January 16, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 24 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: 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? 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) 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its residential nature, this project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. There are no known health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. NPDES Best Management Practices are required to ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 25 Sources: The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, February 16, 2012. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped September 18, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 26 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion This project includes a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and a new attached garage on the lot. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway. The project site is shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel No. 06081C0153E. The site is located in Flood Zone X, which is outside the 100-year flood zone, and is not a Special Flood Hazard Area. Zone X is described as an area of moderate risk to flooding (outside of the 100-year flood but inside the 500-year flood limits) (determined to be within the limits of one percent and 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain). The ground floor of the project is proposed to be constructed about 3'-0” above average top of curb (elevation 50.69’). The subject property is relatively flat, and all of the surface water will be required to drain to the street frontage. As required by the Public Works Department – Engineering Division, roof and surface water will not be allowed to drain onto adjacent properties. Water will either be absorbed by soft landscaping or be collected and directed out to the street (see storm drain discussion above). Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 27 The site is tied into existing water main and storm water collection distribution lines which have adequate capacity to serve the existing building. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street. There will be a minimum increase to the amount of impervious surface area on the lot since the first floor addition and new attached garage would be built where there currently exists a wood deck and asphalt paving. Since the site is less than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the state-mandated water conservation program; although water conservation measures as required by the City will be met. The domestic potable water supply for Burlingame and the proposed project area is not provided by groundwater sources, but rather from surface water sources maintained by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Groundwater would not be used to supply water for the project, and no dewatering of the site is anticipated. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. The project proponent will be required to ensure that all contractors implement BMP’s during construction. This project is subject to the state mandated Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance; compliance will be determined by approval of a complete Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist, and landscape and irrigation design plans at time of the building permit application. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 26, Chapter 26.16 – Physical Design of Improvements, Burlingame, California. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, October 16, 2012. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated February 4, 2014. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated April 28, 2014 and January 16, 2014. Project plans date stamped September 18, 2014. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 28 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: 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 community conservation plan? Discussion The subject property is currently occupied by a two and one-half story single family dwelling. The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 SF for lots in this area, based on City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712. This existing lot is 17,444 square feet in area and is not part of a proposed subdivision or lot adjustment. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The project is subject to single family residential Design Review. The general plan would allow a density of eight units to the acre and the application is for one unit on 0.40 acres, a density of three units per acre. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The subject property is within the Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 2, which abuts the Town of Hillsborough to the west, and which was included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences, all of which are within the City of Burlingame city limits. The existing single family dwelling is a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District. The project would not result in a fundamental conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on land use and planning. The proposed residence conforms to all measurable requirements of the zoning code. A Special Permit is being requested for the proposed attached garage along the right side of the house. The Planning Commission will review the project and determine compliance with Design Review criteria. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. Project plans date stamped September 18, 2014. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 29 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion According to the San Mateo County General Plan, Mineral Resources Map, the project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. San Mateo County, General Plan, October 18, 2010. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 30 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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? Discussion The surrounding area has been occupied by single family dwellings for many years. With the addition to the existing single family dwelling, there will be no significant increase to the ambient noise level in the area. The noise in the area will be general residential noise such as vehicles coming to and from the house, sounds from the residents when using the backyard and noises from putting out garbage cans. The new addition will be compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. Construction of the proposed addition to the house will not require pile driving or other significant vibration causing construction activity. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code, which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. In addition, the site is located outside the designated noise-impacted area from San Francisco International Airport. The project does not include any permanent operational activity that would result in excessive or perceptible vibration, and the operational impact of the project on increased vibration levels would be less than significant. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 31 Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memorandum, dated January 16, 2014. Project plans date stamped September 18, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 32 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? Discussion This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density residential uses. The proposed addition to the existing single family dwelling conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element. The proposed project will not create any more housing because it is an addition to an existing single family dwelling on the same parcel. Since the subject property contains a single family dwelling, the project would not displace existing housing or people. A new road, extension of a roadway or other infrastructure is not required for the single family dwelling and therefore the project would not induce substantial population growth. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on population and housing. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources Project plans date stamped September 18, 2014. The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 2010. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 33 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Discussion The subject property is located within the City of Burlingame jurisdiction. The proposed project includes enlarging an existing single family dwelling on the site, which represents an insignificant increase in the total population of the City. Therefore, existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the existing residential unit. Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which also serves the Town of Hillsborough. Three stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road. As part of the permitting process, the Central County Fire Department would review project plans before permits are issued 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. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional demand for fire protection services, and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities, the project’s potential impact on fire protection services would be less than significant. Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department, located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project consists of enlarging an existing single family dwelling. Therefore, the project would not result in an increased demand for police services or require the expansion or construction of police facilities. The project’s potential impact on police services would be less than significant. Students in the City of Burlingame are served by two school districts: Burlingame School District (BSD) for grades K-8 and San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for grades 9-12. The proposed project would not add any additional residential units; it is anticipated that the potential number of school-age children would not increase or only increase slightly. Therefore, any students generated by the project would be accommodated by the existing capacity of the two districts, resulting in a less than significant impact. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 34 The City of Burlingame is served by several parks and recreation facilities, including 13 parks and playgrounds, an aquatic center, and a golf and soccer center. Since there would be no increase in the number of residential units, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other public facilities and therefore the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memoranda, dated January 21, 2014. City of Burlingame Website, www.burlingame.org This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 35 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15. 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? 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? Discussion The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The sites involved in this project are not presently zoned or used for recreational purposes. Since the proposed project consists of enlarging an existing single family dwelling, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other recreation facilities. Therefore, impacts to recreation would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 36 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion The site is on Chapin Lane, a local roadway connected to a collector street which provides access to El Camino Real, a regional arterial. This project will not create an increase in the traffic generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any temporary incremental increase to traffic or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities. With the addition, the number of potential bedrooms will increase from four to five. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The applicant is proposing to build a new attached garage with two code-compliant spaces (20’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions); and one uncovered space in the driveway. The proposed garage is large enough to accommodate up to two additional covered parking spaces (for a total of four covered parking spaces) but these are not included in the total parking count since they would be in a tandem arrangement. Covered parking may not be provided in tandem configuration if it is intended to be counted towards required parking, but could be allowed as additional parking above and beyond the minimum required. The proposed project meets the off-street parking requirement established in the zoning code. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 37 Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012 Project plans date stamped September 18, 2014. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 38 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No 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? Discussion The subject property is currently occupied by a single family dwelling. Water is provided to the subject property by an existing 4-inch cast iron pipe along Chapin Lane. The existing residence is connected to an existing 8 -inch sewer main along Chapin Lane. To prevent flooding a backflow prevention device is required to be installed. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street frontage, where it will flow along Chapin Lane and Chapin Avenue to a catch basin on El Camino Real. The City Engineer has indicated that there is adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage systems to accommodate the addition to the house. Therefore, the project’s impact to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant. The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems. All new utility connections to serve the site and that are affected by the development will be installed to meet current code standards; sewer laterals from the main on the site to serve the new structure will be checked and replaced if necessary. The current solid waste service provider is Recology, which hauls waste collected in Burlingame to the San Carlos Transfer Station and the Recyclery of San Mateo County for sorting then disposal at Ox Mountain Landfill. Demand for solid waste disposal services generated by the project could be adequately served by existing capacity at the transfer station and landfill and the project would comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 39 Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractor would be required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream and transport and recycle the construction waste separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid waste generated during operation of the project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated February 4, 2014. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated April 28, 2014 and January 16, 2014. Recology San Mateo County, www.recologysanmateocounty.com , site accessed September, 2014. Project Plans date stamped September 18, 2014. Initial Study 325 Chapin Lane 40 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative 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? Discussion The project does not have the potential to 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. Any potential short-term increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less than significant level, as described throughout the Initial Study. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project will not have significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________ NRHP Status Code __________________________________ Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________ Page _1_ of _10_ Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) 325 Chapin Lane P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 1999 *c. Address 325 Chapin Lane City Burlingame Zip 94010 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 028-311-030 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 325 Chapin Lane is located on a rectangular parcel made up of two 50'-wide lots covering 17,616.5 square feet. The parcel is located on the west side of Chapin Lane between Chapin and Ralston avenues. Built in 1906, 235 Chapin Lane is a two-and-a- half-story, wood-frame, single-family residence designed in the Craftsman style. The building is rectangular in plan with a prominent one-story rear addition. It is clad with wood shingle siding and features wood window and door trim. It is capped by a front-facing gable roof covered with composition shingles that has broad open eaves with exposed rafter tails, projecting purlins with knee braces, and simple bargeboards. Gable dormers are located on the north and south sides of the roof. The foundation is concrete. A small one-story detached shed is located to the northwest of the house, and it is accessed by a gravel driveway that runs along the north side of the lot. A lawn surrounds much of the house and a swimming pool is located at the rear of the property. The primary façade faces east. The primary entrance is located within a recessed porch at the center of the first story. The porch opening features a thick shingle-clad column on the left side and a square wood post with decorative brackets at the top on the right side. The bottom of the post rests on a low half-wall with a wood molding around the top. Within the porch is a flush wood entry door with leaded glass in the upper portion. It is flanked by half-length, leaded glass sidelights. To the left of the porch, the first story features an inset bay with angled corners. The face of the bay features a wide panel of clinker brick, while the angled faces on either side feature double-casement, wood-sash windows with curvilinear muntins. The second story overhangs this bay and a massive knee bracket supports the southeast corner of the second story. (See Continuation Sheet) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Photo: (view and date) View of primary (east) façade, 2/15/2013 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: historic 1906, Assessor's Appraisal Report *P7. Owner and Address: Nick Rogers _______ 325 Chapin Lane______________ Burlingame, CA 94010__________ *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94111 *P9. Date Recorded: 2/15/2013 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”) None *Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (list) DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information P5a. Photo State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 2 of 10 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 325 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *P3a. Description: (continued) The right side of the first story features a large window consisting of a multi-lite, steel-sash window that has an operable awning portion at the center. The second story of the primary facade features two double-casement, wood sash windows on the left side. Each sash is divided by a horizontal muntin in the upper half. At the center of the second story is a small square casement window, and on the right side is a pair of double-casement, wood-sash windows that are emphasized by a wood flower box underneath and a gable hood with knee brackets above. The attic story features a pair of windows in a recessed niche. The windows feature two-over-two, double-hung, wood sashes. The facade terminates in a gable end with projecting purlins and knee brackets supporting the broad eaves. The south facade faces a narrow side yard with a gravel driveway. The first story features a pair of double-casement, wood-sash windows with curvilinear muntins on the left side and a pair of single-lite, fixed, wood-sash windows with leaded glass transom lites on the right side. The second story features three regularly spaced double-casement, wood sash windows with horizontal muntins. The facade terminates in broad overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails. A gable dormer projects from the center of the north side of the roof and features a double-casement, wood-sash window with four lites in each sash. Like the main roof, the dormer has overhanging eaves supported by knee brackets and exposed rafter tails. The north facade faces a side yard with a wide gravel driveway. The first story features two one-story, shed-roofed square projecting bays on the right and left sides. To the left of the leftmost projecting bay is a large window consisting of a multi-lite, steel-sash window that has an operable awning portion at the center. The leftmost bay is fenestrated with a one-over-one, double-hung, wood-sash window. Between the two bays is a small oriel window with a shed roof that is supported by knee brackets and fenestrated with a single-lite fixed window. The rightmost bay is unfenestrated. The second story of the north facade features three double-casement, wood-sash windows: two on the left side and one on the right. Between the left windows and the single window on the right is a small, square, single-lite, wood sash window. The facade terminates in broad overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails. A gable dormer projects from the center of the north side of the roof and features a double-casement, wood-sash window with four lites in each sash. Like the main roof, the dormer has overhanging eaves supported by knee brackets and exposed rafter tails. The rear facade of the house is dominated by an expansive wood deck that surrounds an addition, which extends from the left side of the first story and is topped by a deck. The addition has a long rectangular footprint and has an angled west facade. It is fenestrated with double-casement windows and French doors and has an angled oriel window on the south side. The right side of the first story features a small double-casement window, an unfenestrated projecting bay with a shed roof, and a secondary entrance near the southwest corner of the building. The second story of the rear facade features a door with glazing in the upper portion; the door provides access to the rooftop deck on the addition. A shed-roofed projecting bay near the center of the second story features a pair of one-over-one, double-hung windows, and a double-casement window on the right. Two small windows are located at the attic level. The facade terminates in a gable end with projecting purlins and knee brackets supporting the broad eaves. The house appears to be in excellent condition. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 3 of 10 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 235 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Primary entrance, east facade. (Page & Turnbull, February 2013). South façade (Page & Turnbull, February 2013). State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 4 of 10 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 235 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L North facade. (Page & Turnbull, February 2013). Rear (west) facade. (Google Maps, 2013). State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 5 of 12 *NRHP Status Code_3CS___________________ *Resource Name or # 325 Chapin Lane B1. Historic name: 325 Chapin Lane B2. Common name: 325 Chapin Lane B3. Original Use: Single-Family Residence B4. Present use: Single-Family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman ` *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) 1906: Building constructed; 1936: Enclosed porch added; 1974: Reroofing; 1986: Alterations to interior; 1990-1991: Deck addition; 1997: Swimming pool constructed at rear of lot; 2006: Kitchen and bath remodel; Unknown: Rear accretions (screened porch, open porch, attached room/barn) removed and replaced with current rear addition (1990-1991?), steel-sash windows at northeast corner of house added. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________ *B8. Related Features: Detached shed, swimming pool. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Theme_Residential Architecture Area Burlingame Park___________________________ Period of Significance _N/A Property Type_Residential_________________Applicable Criteria_2_ (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Historic Context: City of Burlingame The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given by Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted to Ralston, and eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small- scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. (See Continuation Sheet) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: (See Page 9) B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: February 15, 2013 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2013. Modified by Page & Turnbull. (This space reserved for official comments.) State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 6 of 10 Resource Name or # 325 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L B10. Significance (cont’d): Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910 annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107. Burlingame Park Neighborhood The house at 325 Chapin Lane was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. The Rancho was inherited by Joseph Henry Poett and later sold to Anson Burlingame in 1866 and to William C. Ralston in 1872. Ralston began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Hall’s early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands. Newlands commissioned Hall’s cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan “centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree-lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents” (Brechin 1999, 94). The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911. Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded by El Camino Real to the northeast; Howard, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the southeast; Pepper Avenue to the southwest; and Bellevue Avenue to the northwest. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of about fifty years. 325 Chapin Lane was constructed within the subdivision in the early years. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s and the majority of the residences in the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. Many of these were designed in high architectural styles and were much grander in scale than the earlier residences. By 1949, nearly all of the approximately 250 lots in Burlingame Park were developed. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth century building boom, to the present day. The house at 325 Chapin Avenue is a prime example of the residential building typology constructed in Burlingame Park during its early years. 325 Chapin Lane The house at 325 Chapin Lane was constructed in 1906, one year after the Burlingame Park neighborhood was first platted. No original building permit is available and, therefore, the architect, builder, and original owner are not known. The first known owner/occupant of the house is the Loomis family, consisting of Francis B. Loomis, his wife Elizabeth, daughter Florence, and son Francis Jr. The Loomis family moved to California and settled in Burlingame in 1914, which is the earliest date they may have lived in the subject house. The first year the family is listed in Burlingame city directories is 1918. Francis B. Loomis was born in Ohio in 1861 and graduated from Marrietta College in 1883. After graduation, he joined the staff of the New York Tribune. In 1884, he began an involvement with politics as the head of the press bureau of the Republican National Committee. He served as State Librarian of Ohio for two years, before becoming the Washington correspondent for the Philadelphia Press in 1887. This quickly evolved into a position as press agent for Benjamin Harrison, the Republican nominee of that year's election. With Harrison's victory, Loomis was appointed U.S. Consul to St. Etienne, France in 1890, and for the next three years he concentrated on industrial conditions in Europe. Upon returning to the United States, Loomis became editor-in-chief of the Cincinnati Daily Tribune, but was once again recruited by the Republican party to help with William McKinley's presidential campaign. Loomis married Elizabeth Mast of Ohio and then became Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Venezuela. In Venezuela, he sought to improve trade relations, was instrumental in providing intelligence during the Spanish-American War, and successfully negotiated several commercial treaties. In 1901, Loomis was appointed Minister to Portugal, but in 1902 was recalled and appointed First Assistant Secretary of State under John Hay. When Hay died in 1905, Loomis served as Secretary of State ad interim until Taft took the position. As such, Loomis was the first person to have served through all grades of consular service and became its directing head in Washington. Loomis was a key figure in implementing Theodore Roosevelt's policy in building the Panama Canal and made other major contributions to foreign policy; he played a large part in the settlement of the Santo Domingo financial problems in 1903, implemented the first trade agreement between the U.S. and Abyssinia, and worked on the Russo- Japanese War settlement. Loomis resigned as First Assistant Secretary of State in 1905, but continued to work on special missions State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 7 of 10 Resource Name or # 325 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L and, in 1908, became special envoy to Japan and chairman of the American commission to plan participation in the Tokyo Exposition. Upon returning to the U.S., he became involved with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In 1912, he was appointed U.S. Commissioner General to the Exposition at Turin, Italy and held a similar position with the Berlin International Exposition Congress. After an unsuccessful attempt to purchase the Oakland Tribune, Loomis' fascination with California prompted him to move his family to Burlingame in 1914. Thereafter, he became the foreign trade adviser to Standard Oil. Taking a more local focus, Loomis worked to promote better relations between European-American and Japanese-American citizens of California, and remained active in the Republican party. Francis B. Loomis retired in 1941 and died in 1948. The entire Loomis family appears to have occupied the house at 325 Chapin Lane from 1914 until Loomis' death. In 1925, city directories indicate that Francis Loomis, Jr. and his wife, Mary, and Florence Loomis lived at the property. Upon the patriarch's death, the house at 325 Chapin Lane passed to his widow, Elizabeth, who lived there until her own death in 1959. Ownership then passed to daughter Florence Loomis, who lived at the property until she died in 1985. Florence left the house to Stanford University and, at the time of transition, many neighbors expressed concern about the preservation of the house. Because it was located on almost an acre of land, it was feared that the house would be demolished and the parcel subdivided into four smaller lots. The Burlingame Planning Commission reacted by increasing minimum lot size from a quarter-acre to a half-acre in the area, so that the portion of the lot on which the house sits could not be subdivided. Subsequently, the western half of the lot (fronting on Pepper Avenue) was portioned off, sold, and developed, but the eastern portion was maintained and the house preserved. Stanford University sold the house to a private owner relatively quickly after being given ownership. The following list of owners of the property and their approximate dates of ownership was gathered from information provided by the Burlingame Historical Society. The Loomis family occupied the house for the entire tenure of their ownership. Other occupants are unknown: Unknown (1906-c.1914) Loomis, Francis B. (c.1914-1948) Loomis, Elizabeth (1948-1959) Loomis, Florence I. (1959-1985) Stanford University (1985) Michael H. and Davia M. Love (1985-2012) Nick Rogers (2012-present) Additions and Alterations Few major alterations have been made to the house since its construction in 1906. In 1936, an enclosed porch was added to the house. It is assumed this refers to a screened porch at the rear of the house that is shown on a site map on the 1961 Assessor's Office Appraisal Record. By 1961, the screened porch had been extended with an open porch that connected the house to a detached building labeled as “room and barn.” At a later, unknown date, these accretions onto the rear of the house were removed and replaced with the current one-story addition that consists of a long extension similar to that formed by the accretions, but is a uniform structure. Other alterations that occurred include interior alterations in 1986, the addition of a rear deck in 1990-1991 (this may have been when the current rear addition was created, as it appears to be of that era and is integrally associated with the deck), a swimming pool in 1997, and a kitchen and bath remodel in 2006. Additionally, the steel-sash windows at the northeast corner of the house appear to be alterations and are not reflective of the Craftsman style. The 1961 Appraisal Report notes that at that time the house had “original everything” and that “no remodeling had been done since improvement [enclosed porch?] was built. All three baths have original clawfoot tubs, original plumbing and electricity throughout, original wallpaper, etc.” Evaluation (Significance): The house at 325 Chapin Lane is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed locally. Constructed in 1906, the house at 325 Chapin Lane does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house does convey contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Burlingame Park, and is among the oldest homes in the neighborhood, but does not stand out as a first, only, or unique example of such development. A number of other houses in the area must also contribute to the theme of early development in Burlingame Park and are part of the area's general State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 8 of 10 Resource Name or # 325 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L establishment and growth. Therefore, the property does rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. The house at 325 Chapin Lane appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). Although the original owner is unknown, the house was owned for most of its history (approximately 71 years) by the Francis B. Loomis family. Francis B. Loomis was a national political figure who held many foreign consul offices and served as First Assistant Secretary of State to the United States. He was instrumental in foreign diplomacy and was responsible for a number of major advancements in trade relations, military negotiations, and economic settlements during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He achieved many of his positions and accomplishments before living in the subject house, but continued to be a respected foreign adviser and influential Republican party member while living at 325 Chapin Lane and was responsible for a number of more local diplomatic advancements concerning Japanese-American/European-American relations in California. For these associations with Francis B. Loomis, the subject house appears to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2. It does not appear rise to a level of significance that would make it eligible for listing in the National Register, because other properties may exist elsewhere in the United States that are also associated with Loomis and his accomplishments. However, within California, the subject property is the sole representation of his achievements and, therefore, best represents his role as a person of historical significance within the state. The house at 325 Chapin Lane appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The building is a good example of the size and quality of residences constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood and displays architectural features identified with the Craftsman style. On Chapin Lane alone, it is one of a number of Craftsman style houses, thereby contributing to a context of that aesthetic in the immediate area. However, it stands out by being a larger, more ornate, and unique example among the other smaller and more typical bungalow-form houses. Additionally, the subject property's large lot size is an interesting vestige of the early development of the neighborhood that is not seen in more standard-sized surrounding lots and can be considered a significant physical trait of the property that makes it significant within Burlingame Park. The architect and builder are unknown and cannot be considered masters, but the house otherwise rises to a level of significance to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3. It does not appear rise to a level of significance that would make it eligible for listing in the National Register, because other properties likely exist elsewhere in the United States that qualify as better examples of the Craftsman style, but within Burlingame,California, 325 Chapin Lane represents a strong and intact example of the style. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 325 Chapin Lane for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. Evaluation (Integrity): The house at 325 Chapin Lane retains integrity of location and setting. It is situated on its original lot, and the surrounding Burlingame Park neighborhood remains a residential area characterized by single-family houses. The property has undergone few alterations since its construction, with only additions on the rear facade representing any notable exterior changes. Therefore, integrity of design, materials, and workmanship are intact. The house remains in use as a residence associated with the early twentieth-century residential development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood, and therefore retains integrity of feeling and association. Overall the property retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance. Character Defining Features: For a property to be eligible for national or state designation under one of the significance criteria, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. To be eligible, a property must clearly exhibit enough of those characteristics, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms of form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. The character-defining features of 325 Chapin Lane include:  Rectangular, box-like massing;  Two-and-a-half stories;  Broad gable roof with gable dormers on either side;  Open eaves with exposed rafter tails, purlins, and knee braces;  Wood-frame construction;  Wood shingle cladding;  Wood-sash windows in casement and double-hung configurations;  Recessed porch at center of first story on primary facade;  Recessed angled bay with brick panel on left side of first story of primary facade;  Gabled window hood on second story of primary facade. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 9 of 10 Resource Name or # 325 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Conclusion 325 Chapin Lane appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2. The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “3CS” has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was “found eligible for California Register as an individual property through survey evaluation.” This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth-century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood’s eligibility as a historic district. *B12. References: - Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. - Building Permit Records, 325 Chapin Lane, Burlingame, CA - Burlingame City Directories. - Burlingam Historical Society files. - Burlingame Planning Department, Property file: 325 Chapin Lane. - Bulingame Property Owner Cards, Burlingame Historical Society. - Carey & Company. “Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan.” February 19, 2008. - Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004. - Evans, Beverley L., ed. Burlingame: Lively Memories- a Pictorial View. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 1977. - Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007. - McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. - Online Archive of California, “Loomis (Francis B.) Papers.” - Parcel History, San Mateo County Hall of Records, Redwood City. - “Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame.” July 26, 1982. - United States Federal Census records: 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930. - San Mateo County Assessor Records. - Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921, 1949. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 10 of 10 Resource Name or # 325 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Historic Maps and Photographs: 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 325 Chapin Lane outlined in red; edited by author. 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 325 Chapin Lane outlined in red; edited by author. imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology Page & Turnbull 325 CHAPIN LANE HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION PART II [13015A] PREPARED FOR: CITY OF BURLINGAME AUGUST 29, 2014 Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -1- TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 2 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................... 2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 3 II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS ............................................................................ 4 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES .................................................................................... 4 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 4 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE ..................................................................... 4 III. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE AND CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES ............ 5 IV. CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS .................................................................................. 6 V. PROPOSED PROJECT ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 12 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .............................................................................. 12 STATUS OF EXISTING BUILDING AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE ....................................................... 12 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE CHANGE UNDER CEQA ...................................... 13 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 13 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS ............................................................................... 15 PROJECT IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 20 SUMMARY OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT MEASURES .......................................................................................................................................... 21 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................... 21 VI. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 23 VII. REFERENCES CITED ........................................................................................... 24 VIII. APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................... 25 Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -2- I. INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) has been prepared at the request of the City of Burlingame to determine the compatibility of proposed alterations to the single-family residence at 325 Chapin Lane (APN 028-311-030). This property was found eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources through previous evaluation. The residence at 325 Chapin Lane is a two-and- one-half-story Craftsman-style residence constructed in 1906, located on the west side of Chapin Lane between Occidental Avenue and Ralston Avenue (Figure 1). According to project plans submitted by Chris Spaulding Architect, new construction would include the construction of a rear addition, attached four-car garage, network of driveways, and various alterations to fenestration and design elements on the building’s façades. Figure 1. San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Map, with subject property lot outlined in red. Source: http://www.smcare.org/apps/parcelmaps/ SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION 325 Chapin Lane was evaluated in 2013 by Page & Turnbull using State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 523A (Primary) and 523B (Building, Structure and Object) Forms (Appendix A). Page & Turnbull’s evaluation found the building eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons) for its association with Francis B. Loomis, a resident of the building between ca. 1914 and 1948. Loomis was a significant political figure nationally and regionally during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Loomis served as a diplomat, became the first Assistant Secretary of State in the United States, and was involved in directing American foreign Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -3- policy under President Theodore Roosevelt. While he resided at 325 Chapin Lane, Loomis furthered efforts to improve relations between California’s Euro-American and Japanese-American residents. In addition, 325 Chapin Lane was found significant under Criterion 3 (Architecture) as an excellent example of ornate Craftsman-style architecture within the Burlingame Park residential subdivision. A site visit in June 2014 confirmed that the property retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance. Therefore, 325 Chapin Lane should be considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project was evaluated according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and was determined not to comply with all of the Standards. The proposed project as designed does not sufficiently differentiate the new work from the old, and it has a secondary impact to the setting of the residence. The proposed project, therefore, would potentially cause a significant adverse impact under CEQA. METHODOLOGY This report follows Page & Turnbull’s standard Historic Resource Evaluation Report and includes a summary of the building’s current historic status with regard to listing in the national, state, and local registers; a review of the DPR 523A and 523B forms prepared by Page & Turnbull in 2013; a summary of the building’s historic significance and a list of character-defining features that enable the building to convey its historic significance; and current photographs of the building. Based on the finding of historic significance, the proposed project is evaluated using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Standards). All photographs in the report were taken by Page & Turnbull in June 2014, unless otherwise noted. Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -4- II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS The following section examines the national and state historical ratings currently assigned to 325 Chapin Lane. The City of Burlingame does not currently have a local register of historic properties. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. The 2013 DPR 523A and 523B Forms found that 325 Chapin Lane is not individually eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. 325 Chapin Lane was evaluated in 2013 by Page & Turnbull and found to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register (discussed further below). CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE Properties listed or under review by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation are assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) of “1” to “7” to establish their historical significance in relation to the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources. 325 Chapin Lane is not listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database. Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -5- III. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE AND CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES As described above, 325 Chapin Lane has been found historically significant under California Register Criterion 1 (Persons) for its association with Francis B. Loomis, and under Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a striking example of Craftsman-style architecture within an early twentieth-century residential subdivision. For a property to be eligible for national, state, or local designation under one of the significance criteria, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. The 2013 DPR 523A and 523B forms include a list of the character-defining features for the building. Generally, significance for architecture is supported by the retention of features that relate to design, materials, and workmanship, and significance for association with events or persons is supported by the retention of features that relate to location, setting, feeling, and association. The character-defining features of 325 Chapin Lane are:  Rectangular, box-like massing;  Two and one half stories;  Broad gabled roof with gable dormers on either side;  Wood-frame construction;  Wood shingle cladding;  Wood-sash windows in casement and double-hung configurations;  Recessed porch at center of first story on primary façade;  Recessed angled bay with brick panel on left side of first story of primary façade;  Gabled window hood on second story of primary façade. Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -6- IV. CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS Page & Turnbull conducted a site visit to the property in June 2014. The purpose of the site visit was to gather updated photographic documentation and to ascertain whether the building had changed since it was evaluated in the DPR forms in 2013 to a degree that would alter the building’s integrity. Examination of the building’s materials and a review of the building’s setting found that integrity is not appreciably different than it was when it was surveyed in February 2013. Figure 2. Primary façade, viewed facing west. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 3. Primary façade and front lawn, viewed facing west. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -7- Figure 4. Detail of first-story angled bay on primary façade. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 5. Detail of first-story porch on primary façade. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 6. North façade, side drive, and sheds, viewed facing southwest. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 7. Detail of east end of north façade. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 8. North façade, viewed facing south. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -8- Figure 9. West end of north façade, viewed facing southwest. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 10. Non-historic sheds located off of northwest corner of residence. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 11. Rear addition and west façade, viewed facing southeast. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -9- Figure 12. West façade, viewed facing east. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 13. South side of rear addition and surrounding deck, viewed facing north. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -10- Figure 14. Second-story and attic windows at west façade . Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Figure 15. First-story window and door with diamond lights at west façade. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -11- Figure 16. South façade, viewed facing northwest. Source: Page & Turnbull, 2014 Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -12- V. PROPOSED PROJECT ANALYSIS This section analyzes the proposed project for project-specific and cumulative impacts on the environment, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) is state legislation (Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.), that provides for the development and maintenance of a high quality environment for the present day and future through the identification of significant environmental effects.1 For public agencies, the main goals of CEQA are to: 1. Identify the significant environmental effects of projects; and either 2. Avoid those significant environmental effects, where feasible; or 3. Mitigate those significant environmental effects, where feasible. CEQA applies to “projects” proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval from state or local government agencies. “Projects” are defined as “…activities which have the potential to have a physical impact on the environment and may include the enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative subdivision maps.”2 Historical and cultural resources are considered to be part of the environment. In general, the lead agency must complete the environmental review process as required by CEQA. The basic steps are: 1. Determine if the activity is a “project;” 2. Determine if the project is exempt from CEQA; 3. Perform an Initial Study to identify the environmental impacts of the Project and determine whether the identified impacts are “significant.” Based on the finding of significant impacts, the lead agency may prepare one of the following documents: a) Negative Declaration for findings of no “significant” impacts; b) Mitigated Negative Declaration for findings of “significant” impacts that may revise the Project to avoid or mitigate those “significant” impacts; c) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for findings of “significant” impacts. STATUS OF EXISTING BUILDING AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE A building may qualify as a historic resource if it falls within at least one of four categories listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). The four categories are:  A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).  A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 1 State of California, California Environmental Quality Act, accessed 19 November 2013, http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/summary.html. 2 Ibid. Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -13-  Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).  The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Pub. Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Pub. Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Pub. Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. In general, a resource that meets any of the four criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) is considered to be a historical resource unless “the preponderance of evidence demonstrates” that the resource is not historically or culturally significant.”3 Based on analysis and evaluation contained in the 2013 DPR 523A and 523B forms and confirmed in this evaluation, 325 Chapin Lane meets the criteria for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. As such, the property is considered a qualified historic resource under CEQA under the third of the categories listed above. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE CHANGE UNDER CEQA According to CEQA, a “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.”4 Substantial adverse change is defined as: “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would be materially impaired.”5 The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance” and that justify or account for its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to local ordinance or resolution.6 Thus, a project may cause a substantial change in a historic resource but still not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as defined by CEQA as long as the impact of the change on the historic resource is determined to be less-than- significant, negligible, neutral or even beneficial. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION A proposed project designed by Chris Spaulding Architect, date stamped 14 May 2014, was submitted to Page & Turnbull for review in June 2014. The current proposal includes the removal of two existing sheds that stand adjacent to the northwest corner of the residence; the construction of an attached garage, adjoining two-story rear addition, and covered porch at the northwest corner of 3 Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq. 4 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b). 5 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(1). 6 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(2). Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -14- the residence; the widening of an existing projection off the north façade of the residence; the construction of a gabled roof projection above the main entry porch; the construction of a gabled hood above the central second-story window on the primary façade; the widening of the existing driveway that enters the lot from Chapin Lane and leads along the property’s north edge; the introduction of a semicircular vehicle approach drive and walkway to enter the front lawn from Chapin Lane; and the construction of a 3’-high fence alongside the Chapin Lane public sidewalk, with three gates installed at vehicle and pedestrian access points. The proposed project is described in greater detail below. Site plans and elevations for the proposed project are on file with the City of Burlingame. The design vocabulary for proposed new construction aims to conform to the residence’s existing Craftsman-style architectural details. All new exterior walls would be clad in wood shingle siding to match existing cladding. New roofs would have slopes to match the roof of the original building. Newly constructed roof gables would feature wood brackets and projecting beams to match the existing features of the house. Primary (East) Façade Proposed alterations to the east façade are the construction of two gabled coverings that project from the exterior wall. A new gabled roof with bargeboard is proposed above the opening to the first-story entry porch. As proposed, the roof peak is supported by a diagonally-braced bracket, and the ends of the bargeboard are supported by projecting beams. A gabled window hood is proposed above the central second-story window pairing on this façade, supported under the peak by a projecting beam and on either side of the windows by diagonally-braced brackets. A wood window box is proposed underneath this window to match the existing wood box underneath the window grouping at the north end of the façade (Figure 2). North Façade A primary component of the proposed project is the construction of a one-story, four-car garage at the west half of the north side of the house. The construction of the garage would require the removal of two non-original sheds that currently stand beside the residence’s north façade (Figure 10). The garage would have a maximum height of 17’ 6” and would extend approximately 46’ toward the rear of the property. The proposed garage would be cross-gabled and consist of two main portions. The front portion, nearest Chapin Lane, would be side-gabled and extend approximately 25’ toward the north boundary of the property. It would feature a front gable facing Chapin Lane above a wood vehicle door, to be accessed by the existing drive. Beside the vehicle door is a new pedestrian entry door. The north façade of this portion of the garage would feature a paired window. The rear portion of the garage would be end-gabled and extend 25’ from the rear of the front portion. The north façade would include an aluminum-clad wood door with window and a pairing of aluminum-clad wood windows. The rear façade of the garage would feature a similar aluminum-clad wood window pairing and a paired wood door. Proposed alterations to the north façade also include the removal of the existing multi-light steel-sash window from the enclosed porch, located at the east end of the façade (Figure 7). The adjacent projecting bay would be widened to the east, over the area where the steel-sash window is currently located, with roof and shingle cladding to match. The one-over-one window on this projecting bay would be replaced by a new window pairing. To the west of the bay are two existing non-original windows that would be removed and replaced by a single window. The small shed-roofed oriel window at the center of this façade would receive a new shed roof with eaves that overhang on all sides. The garage would be built in front of several existing features at the west half of the façade, including two shed-roofed projections and a wood landing and steps (Figure 9). Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -15- West Façade The proposed rear addition at the west façade would include the expansion of the existing v-shaped rear wing (Figure 12), so that the wing would be rectangular in plan. To accommodate new construction, the existing rear wood deck would be removed. A gabled first-story roof would be constructed over the rear wing, extending past its west end to cover an unenclosed, L-shaped porch. The west edge of the roof would be supported by two wood piers, and the porch would be surrounded by a low wall clad in shingles. The new roof would also cover an interior breakfast nook expanded from an existing angled bay projection (Figure 13). Existing windows and doors on the rear wing would be replaced by bands of aluminum-clad wood French doors. The rear addition would also include construction at the second story. As proposed, the second-story addition would cover the north half of the façade above the new first-story gabled roof, but it would not project as far to the west. The proposed second-story construction would cover an existing flat- roofed projection that does not appear to be original to the residence. The addition would require that the two existing attic windows (Figure 14) be moved closer together at the center of the primary gable, remaining symmetrically arranged. Two existing wood brackets would be removed from the north end of the façade, as well as a wood-frame window at the center of the second story. Proposed alterations to existing elements on the west façade include the removal of an existing, historic diamond-light window pairing and wood door within the south half of the façade (Figure 15). The window pairing would be moved to the existing location of the door at the south end of the façade. Two French doors would be installed within the shed-roofed projection located between these two elements. South Façade No alterations are proposed to the existing elements of the south façade. Site Proposed changes to the residence’s immediate site include new circulation, walls, access gates, and vegetation. The existing paved drive along the north edge of the lot will widen as it approaches the parking pad ahead of the new garage. The existing drive will also connect to a new paved semi- circular approach drive that enters from Chapin Avenue at the southeast corner of the lot. A proposed new entry walk will cross the semi-circular drive and reach the sidewalk at the center of the lot’s frontage with Chapin Avenue. According to plans, a wall of unspecified materials, 3’ high, will be constructed along the east edge of the lot, featuring hinged gates at the three circulation access points into the property. Interior The proposed project would involve extensive remodeling of the residence’s interior. Interior alterations to residential buildings are generally considered acceptable with regard to CEQA; therefore, analysis of interior alterations is outside the scope of this document. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Standards) provide guidance for reviewing proposed work on historic properties, with the stated goal of making possible “a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.”7 The Standards are used by Federal agencies in evaluating work on historic properties. The 7National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, accessed online 19 November 2013, http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/. Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -16- Standards have also been adopted by local government bodies across the country for reviewing proposed rehabilitation work on historic properties under local preservation ordinances. The Standards are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of substantial changes to historic resources. Projects that comply with the Standards benefit from a regulatory presumption that they would have a less-than-significant adverse impact on a historic resource.8 Projects that do not comply with the Standards may cause either a substantial or less-than- substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. The Standards offers four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The four distinct treatments are defined as follows: Preservation: The Standards for Preservation “require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along with the building’s historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over time.” Rehabilitation: The Standards for Rehabilitation “acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing new uses while retaining the building’s historic character.” Restoration: The Standards for Restoration “allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods.” Reconstruction: The Standards for Reconstruction “establish a limited framework for recreating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes.” Typically, one set of standards is chosen for a project based on the project scope. In this case, the proposed project scope is seeking to alter and add to a historic building to continue its existing use. Therefore, the Standards for Rehabilitation will be applied. Standards for Rehabilitation The following analysis applies each of the applicable Standards for Rehabilitation to the proposed project at 325 Chapin Lane. This analysis is based upon the proposed designs by Chris Spaulding Architect, dated 7 January 2014, as submitted to Page & Turnbull by the City of Burlingame. Rehabilitation Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Discussion: The proposed project does not change the use of the historic residence at 325 Chapin Lane; it will continue to be used as a single-family home. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 1. Rehabilitation Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. 8 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(3). Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -17- Discussion: As proposed, the project would involve the removal of historic materials, namely ornamental brackets and a wood panel door with diamond-muntin window at the west façade, and wood shingles from exterior areas at the north and west facades where the garage and rear addition are currently planned. These features are located on secondary facades, however. It is therefore not expected that the removal of these features would cause a significant impact to the property’s historic character. Other features that would be removed or covered by new construction—windows, doors, and projections—are not original to the building. In addition, the project would modify the relatively solid and compact massing of the building, typical of Craftsman residences. The proposed four-car garage would form a prominent projecting volume off the northwest corner of the residence; however, it is set back from the front façade and would have only two automobile bays facing Chapin Lane, thus minimizing its visual impact. The rear two-story addition may also add observable bulk to the residence, but its location on a secondary façade lessens its impact. The widening of the one-story projection at the north corner would not significantly alter the historic massing of the house. The proposed circular driveway would not have a direct impact on the significant architecture of the building, though the feature would affect the residence’s integrity of setting to an extent. The driveway would eliminate much of the front lawn, which contributes to the broader streetscape characteristic of early-twentieth-century residential subdivisions such as Burlingame Park. However, these changes to the property’s spaces and spatial relationships do not detrimentally affect the property’s overall historic character, and the intervention of the front drive is considered a reversible action. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 2. Rehabilitation Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties, will not be undertaken. Discussion: The proposed project strives to match newly constructed features with the existing exterior fabric of the residence. This includes wood shingle siding across all exterior walls of the proposed garage and rear addition to match the original cladding materials; similarly sloped roofs on new construction to match the roofs of the original residence; diagonally-braced wood brackets underneath the eaves on all newly constructed gables; two new gabled features and window box at the front façade to match existing features; and wood piers supporting the roof at the rear porch. By pursuing fidelity to the features, design, and materials of the existing residence, new construction may create a false sense of history and give the impression that 325 Chapin Lane was originally constructed with an attached garage, rear two-story addition and surrounding porch, and total of three decorative gabled features at the front façade. Therefore, the proposed project is not in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 3. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Discussion: As designed, the proposed project would not affect any changes to 325 Chapin Lane that have acquired historic significance in their own right. Some changes have taken place since the residence was constructed, and several non-original features would be removed or significantly altered by the proposed project. These include the steel-sash window at the east end of the north façade; the one-story v-shaped addition and surrounding wood deck constructed at the rear façade; Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -18- various projections and non-original windows and doors; and the two adjacent sheds. None of these elements appears to be age-eligible or to have acquired significance in its own right. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 4, as no non-original features of the residence have been found significant in their own right. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Discussion: As proposed, the project would affect select character-defining materials and features, such as exterior cladding, brackets, and windows. Significant elements at locations that are visible from Chapin Lane, particularly those on the front façade, will be retained. Therefore, the proposed project would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 5. Rehabilitation Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Discussion: As designed, the proposed project does not appear to involve replacement of deteriorated or missing features. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 6. Rehabilitation Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Discussion: As designed, the proposed project does not appear to introduce chemical or physical treatments to the residence at 325 Chapin Lane. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 7. Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measure will be undertaken. Discussion: The proposed project will include excavation work in advance of the construction of the rear addition, garage, and paved driveways. If any archaeological material is encountered during this project, construction should be halted and the City of Burlingame’s standard procedures for treatment of archeological materials should be adhered to. If standard procedures are followed in the case of an encounter with archaeological material, the proposed project will be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 8. Rehabilitation Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and environment. Discussion: As discussed in Standard 2, the proposed project would remove historic features from the exterior of the residence in order to accommodate the construction of the garage and rear addition. Original wood shingles would be removed from areas where new construction would occur. The Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -19- proposed project would affect historic features, such as wood brackets and original windows, although these are located on the rear façade and are not visible from Chapin Lane. The widening of the projection at the east end of the north façade would result in the removal of a non-original steel- sash window and would not significantly affect the overall massing of the residence. New construction employs Craftsman design vocabulary that imitates the existing fabric of the residence. Proposed wood shingle cladding and architectural features across the façades (wood brackets and projecting beams, porch support piers, window box) would be identical to original elements located elsewhere at the residence. New gabled features on the front façade, for instance, would directly reflect an original nearby gabled window hood. Proposed new construction would not be differentiated from the residence’s original character- defining features. Therefore, the proposed project is not in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 9. Rehabilitation Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Discussion: The proposed project would involve the construction of a garage and addition adjoining the historic residence and it is expected that original exterior walls would be removed during construction. In the case that the garage and rear addition are removed in the future, the residence’s integrity would be negatively affected. Recreation of the existing exterior walls would be needed if the additions are removed. As they are not located on the primary façade, however, their removal would not negatively affect the residence’s overall form and most prominent character-defining features. The proposed circular driveway and property fence could be removed in the future without negatively affecting the form and integrity of the residence. Likewise, more finely detailed aspects of the proposed projects—such as new gabled elements on the front façade—appear that they could be removed and cause minimal damage to the exterior cladding materials. Therefore, the proposed project will comply with Rehabilitation Standard 10. Summary of Standards Compliance As designed, the proposed project will comply with six Standards (1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10) and will not comply with two Standards (3 and 9), reflecting proposed actions that would negatively impact the residence’s sense of historical development. Standards 6 and 7 are not applicable to the proposed project. In order to assess impacts pursuant to CEQA, compliance with the Standards must be either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ finding; a ‘yes’ finding would be based on compliance with all of the Standards. Because the additions proposed in the project fail to comply with Standards that relate to the building’s significance as an example of Craftsman-style residential architecture, the project as proposed does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -20- PROJECT IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS As discussed above, the proposed project at 325 Chapin Lane would involve the construction of additions and alterations that would affect the resource’s historic integrity. The following section identifies the significant project-specific impacts and includes project improvement measures that could reduce the level of these impacts. IMPACT 1.0 Proposed additions are not sufficiently differentiated from the existing building. Analysis of Impact The proposed alterations to the residence at 325 Chapin Lane closely follow the architectural vocabulary of original Craftsman-style materials and features found on the existing residence. The project proposes appropriate roof slopes and forms that are compatible with the existing residence and should be retained. Other proposed design elements, however, are identical to those that are original. These include wood shingle cladding and ornamental brackets underneath bargeboard. Two proposed decorative gabled roofs on the primary façade mimic an existing gabled window hood that is original to the house. While the project, as proposed, would create consistency across the facades and between old and new construction, such consistency is so seamless that it would not allow the proposed construction to be differentiated from the original building. Guidelines for the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties recommend that new construction employ a distinct but sympathetic architectural vocabulary so that it complements but is not confused with original elements. Recommendation It is recommended that the exterior cladding and design elements of the new construction not exactly follow the design of the original building, though they should remain compatible. New work should follow guidance provided by the National Park Service: Design for the new work may be contemporary or may reference design motifs from the historic building. In either case, it should always be clearly differentiated from the historic building and be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relationship of solids to voids, and color.9 The roof lines and rectangular plan of the proposed new construction are compatible to the original residence and are appropriate measures for the addition. Since the residence was constructed well before attached garages were de rigueur, it is hoped that the garage would not be mistaken for an original element. The exterior cladding, however, should have slightly different proportions, patterns, textures, or materials, so that upon review it is apparent as an alteration. Subtle differentiation is encouraged. Over new construction, the property owner could consider a different pattern of wood shingles that is not greatly different from what already exists on the original house—for instance, one that includes courses of shingles that are similar in height to those of the existing cladding, but with narrower intermediate courses inserted. It is not anticipated that these additional courses would substantially change the impression of the entire cladding system, but would have the advantage of subtly indicating that the addition is, in fact, an addition. It is not encouraged that decorative brackets within newly constructed gables appear identical to the house’s original brackets. Minor variations are recommended. Likewise, the two proposed gabled 9 National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997), 92. Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -21- roofs on the front façade, as well as the proposed window box, should be eliminated from the design, as they are the most visible conjectural details within the proposed project. SUMMARY OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT MEASURES The proposed alterations to the residence at 325 Chapin Lane do not comply with all of the Standards due to a lack of differentiation between new construction and old. As such, the proposed project would likely constitute an impact under CEQA. The project improvement measure outlined above would assist in distinguishing new construction from the existing residence by striving for “compatible yet differentiated” materials. This action would allow new elements to appear separate from and compatible with the character-defining design elements of the building. In addition, Page & Turnbull recommends the following adjustment to the proposed project in order to better adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:  It is recommended that the proposed circular driveway be removed, or else be reduced in footprint as much as possible to the extent that the property owners can still accomplish their needs. While the proposed driveway would not detrimentally affect the overall integrity of the property, this recommended measure would help to maintain the residence’s integrity of setting and the general character of the streetscape. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CEQA defines cumulative impacts as follows: “Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.10 Proposed new construction at the site does not appear to cause any cumulative impacts which in combination with other currently proposed projects or recently completed projects would compound or increase environmental impacts. On the residence itself, earlier changes (such as the rear v-shaped wing and additional small projections) are located on secondary facades and would not lead to cumulative impacts to the integrity of the property. The neighborhood may be eligible as a historic district, though no formal district evaluation has been conducted and the City of Burlingame does not have an ordinance whereby buildings or districts could be listed locally as historic resources. Several residences on Chapin Lane within one block of the subject property have alterations that are visible from the street. These include a garage 10 CEQA Guidelines, Article 20, subsection 15355. Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -22- constructed adjoining the front façade of 401 Chapin Lane (located two lots north of the subject property), as well as a large addition to 1617 Chapin Lane (located in a prominent location across Chapin Lane from the subject property). Second-story additions to residences and recent alterations to hardscaping are apparent along Chapin Lane. The residences located adjacent to and across Chapin Lane from the subject property, however, appear to maintain good integrity, and there are no known planned projects within the immediate area. Overall, the proposed project does not appear to contribute to any cumulative impact as defined by CEQA. Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -23- VI. CONCLUSION Originally constructed c. 1906, 325 Chapin Lane was determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources in 2013 by Page & Turnbull, using State of California DPR 523A and 523B forms. The evaluation concluded that the residence is significant as an ornate example of Craftsman-style residential architecture within the early-twentieth-century residential subdivision of Burlingame Park, and for conveying the life of Francis Loomis, a nationally-known political figure during the first half of the twentieth century and a longtime resident of the house. Therefore, 325 Chapin Lane is considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A proposed project for new construction at 325 Chapin Lane was evaluated according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed project was determined not to comply with all of the Standards, due to its impact on the building’s massing and its lack of architectural differentiation between original and new elements. Page & Turnbull has proposed project improvement measures to assist in reducing project-specific impacts, in order to allow new construction to be visually distinct from existing features. An additional recommendation offers guidance on mitigating the impact of the proposed circular driveway on the residence’s immediate setting. These measures would assist the project to be in compliance with the Standards, so that new construction can complement—but not replicate—this historic Craftsman-style residence. Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -24- VII. REFERENCES CITED National Park Service. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, accessed 19 November 2013, http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/. National Park Service. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997. Page & Turnbull. “325 Chapin Lane,” California Department of Parks and Recreation 523A (Primary) and 523B (Building Structure and Object) Forms. February 2013. State of California Office of Historic Preservation. “Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for San Mateo County.” April 2012. State of California, California Environmental Quality Act, accessed 19 November 2013, http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/summary.html. Historic Resource Evaluation 325 Chapin Lane Burlingame, California August 29, 2014 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -25- VIII. APPENDIX A State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 523A (primary) and 523B (secondary) forms prepared by Page & Turnbull, 2013. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________ NRHP Status Code __________________________________ Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________ Page _1_ of _10_ Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) 325 Chapin Lane P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 1999 *c. Address 325 Chapin Lane City Burlingame Zip 94010 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 028-311-030 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 325 Chapin Lane is located on a rectangular parcel made up of two 50'-wide lots covering 17,616.5 square feet. The parcel is located on the west side of Chapin Lane between Chapin and Ralston avenues. Built in 1906, 235 Chapin Lane is a two-and-a- half-story, wood-frame, single-family residence designed in the Craftsman style. The building is rectangular in plan with a prominent one-story rear addition. It is clad with wood shingle siding and features wood window and door trim. It is capped by a front-facing gable roof covered with composition shingles that has broad open eaves with exposed rafter tails, projecting purlins with knee braces, and simple bargeboards. Gable dormers are located on the north and south sides of the roof. The foundation is concrete. A small one-story detached shed is located to the northwest of the house, and it is accessed by a gravel driveway that runs along the north side of the lot. A lawn surrounds much of the house and a swimming pool is located at the rear of the property. The primary façade faces east. The primary entrance is located within a recessed porch at the center of the first story. The porch opening features a thick shingle-clad column on the left side and a square wood post with decorative brackets at the top on the right side. The bottom of the post rests on a low half-wall with a wood molding around the top. Within the porch is a flush wood entry door with leaded glass in the upper portion. It is flanked by half-length, leaded glass sidelights. To the left of the porch, the first story features an inset bay with angled corners. The face of the bay features a wide panel of clinker brick, while the angled faces on either side feature double-casement, wood-sash windows with curvilinear muntins. The second story overhangs this bay and a massive knee bracket supports the southeast corner of the second story. (See Continuation Sheet) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Photo: (view and date) View of primary (east) façade, 2/15/2013 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: historic 1906, Assessor's Appraisal Report *P7. Owner and Address: Nick Rogers _______ 325 Chapin Lane______________ Burlingame, CA 94010__________ *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94111 *P9. Date Recorded: 2/15/2013 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”) None *Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (list) DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information P5a. Photo State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 2 of 10 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 325 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *P3a. Description: (continued) The right side of the first story features a large window consisting of a multi-lite, steel-sash window that has an operable awning portion at the center. The second story of the primary facade features two double-casement, wood sash windows on the left side. Each sash is divided by a horizontal muntin in the upper half. At the center of the second story is a small square casement window, and on the right side is a pair of double-casement, wood-sash windows that are emphasized by a wood flower box underneath and a gable hood with knee brackets above. The attic story features a pair of windows in a recessed niche. The windows feature two-over-two, double-hung, wood sashes. The facade terminates in a gable end with projecting purlins and knee brackets supporting the broad eaves. The south facade faces a narrow side yard with a gravel driveway. The first story features a pair of double-casement, wood-sash windows with curvilinear muntins on the left side and a pair of single-lite, fixed, wood-sash windows with leaded glass transom lites on the right side. The second story features three regularly spaced double-casement, wood sash windows with horizontal muntins. The facade terminates in broad overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails. A gable dormer projects from the center of the north side of the roof and features a double-casement, wood-sash window with four lites in each sash. Like the main roof, the dormer has overhanging eaves supported by knee brackets and exposed rafter tails. The north facade faces a side yard with a wide gravel driveway. The first story features two one-story, shed-roofed square projecting bays on the right and left sides. To the left of the leftmost projecting bay is a large window consisting of a multi-lite, steel-sash window that has an operable awning portion at the center. The leftmost bay is fenestrated with a one-over-one, double-hung, wood-sash window. Between the two bays is a small oriel window with a shed roof that is supported by knee brackets and fenestrated with a single-lite fixed window. The rightmost bay is unfenestrated. The second story of the north facade features three double-casement, wood-sash windows: two on the left side and one on the right. Between the left windows and the single window on the right is a small, square, single-lite, wood sash window. The facade terminates in broad overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails. A gable dormer projects from the center of the north side of the roof and features a double-casement, wood-sash window with four lites in each sash. Like the main roof, the dormer has overhanging eaves supported by knee brackets and exposed rafter tails. The rear facade of the house is dominated by an expansive wood deck that surrounds an addition, which extends from the left side of the first story and is topped by a deck. The addition has a long rectangular footprint and has an angled west facade. It is fenestrated with double-casement windows and French doors and has an angled oriel window on the south side. The right side of the first story features a small double-casement window, an unfenestrated projecting bay with a shed roof, and a secondary entrance near the southwest corner of the building. The second story of the rear facade features a door with glazing in the upper portion; the door provides access to the rooftop deck on the addition. A shed-roofed projecting bay near the center of the second story features a pair of one-over-one, double-hung windows, and a double-casement window on the right. Two small windows are located at the attic level. The facade terminates in a gable end with projecting purlins and knee brackets supporting the broad eaves. The house appears to be in excellent condition. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 3 of 10 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 235 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Primary entrance, east facade. (Page & Turnbull, February 2013). South façade (Page & Turnbull, February 2013). State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 4 of 10 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 235 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L North facade. (Page & Turnbull, February 2013). Rear (west) facade. (Google Maps, 2013). State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 5 of 12 *NRHP Status Code_3CS___________________ *Resource Name or # 325 Chapin Lane B1. Historic name: 325 Chapin Lane B2. Common name: 325 Chapin Lane B3. Original Use: Single-Family Residence B4. Present use: Single-Family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman ` *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) 1906: Building constructed; 1936: Enclosed porch added; 1974: Reroofing; 1986: Alterations to interior; 1990-1991: Deck addition; 1997: Swimming pool constructed at rear of lot; 2006: Kitchen and bath remodel; Unknown: Rear accretions (screened porch, open porch, attached room/barn) removed and replaced with current rear addition (1990-1991?), steel-sash windows at northeast corner of house added. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________ *B8. Related Features: Detached shed, swimming pool. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Theme_Residential Architecture Area Burlingame Park___________________________ Period of Significance _N/A Property Type_Residential_________________Applicable Criteria_2_ (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Historic Context: City of Burlingame The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given by Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted to Ralston, and eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small- scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. (See Continuation Sheet) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: (See Page 9) B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: February 15, 2013 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2013. Modified by Page & Turnbull. (This space reserved for official comments.) State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 6 of 10 Resource Name or # 325 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L B10. Significance (cont’d): Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910 annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107. Burlingame Park Neighborhood The house at 325 Chapin Lane was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. The Rancho was inherited by Joseph Henry Poett and later sold to Anson Burlingame in 1866 and to William C. Ralston in 1872. Ralston began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Hall’s early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands. Newlands commissioned Hall’s cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan “centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree-lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents” (Brechin 1999, 94). The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911. Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded by El Camino Real to the northeast; Howard, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the southeast; Pepper Avenue to the southwest; and Bellevue Avenue to the northwest. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of about fifty years. 325 Chapin Lane was constructed within the subdivision in the early years. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s and the majority of the residences in the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. Many of these were designed in high architectural styles and were much grander in scale than the earlier residences. By 1949, nearly all of the approximately 250 lots in Burlingame Park were developed. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth century building boom, to the present day. The house at 325 Chapin Avenue is a prime example of the residential building typology constructed in Burlingame Park during its early years. 325 Chapin Lane The house at 325 Chapin Lane was constructed in 1906, one year after the Burlingame Park neighborhood was first platted. No original building permit is available and, therefore, the architect, builder, and original owner are not known. The first known owner/occupant of the house is the Loomis family, consisting of Francis B. Loomis, his wife Elizabeth, daughter Florence, and son Francis Jr. The Loomis family moved to California and settled in Burlingame in 1914, which is the earliest date they may have lived in the subject house. The first year the family is listed in Burlingame city directories is 1918. Francis B. Loomis was born in Ohio in 1861 and graduated from Marrietta College in 1883. After graduation, he joined the staff of the New York Tribune. In 1884, he began an involvement with politics as the head of the press bureau of the Republican National Committee. He served as State Librarian of Ohio for two years, before becoming the Washington correspondent for the Philadelphia Press in 1887. This quickly evolved into a position as press agent for Benjamin Harrison, the Republican nominee of that year's election. With Harrison's victory, Loomis was appointed U.S. Consul to St. Etienne, France in 1890, and for the next three years he concentrated on industrial conditions in Europe. Upon returning to the United States, Loomis became editor-in-chief of the Cincinnati Daily Tribune, but was once again recruited by the Republican party to help with William McKinley's presidential campaign. Loomis married Elizabeth Mast of Ohio and then became Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Venezuela. In Venezuela, he sought to improve trade relations, was instrumental in providing intelligence during the Spanish-American War, and successfully negotiated several commercial treaties. In 1901, Loomis was appointed Minister to Portugal, but in 1902 was recalled and appointed First Assistant Secretary of State under John Hay. When Hay died in 1905, Loomis served as Secretary of State ad interim until Taft took the position. As such, Loomis was the first person to have served through all grades of consular service and became its directing head in Washington. Loomis was a key figure in implementing Theodore Roosevelt's policy in building the Panama Canal and made other major contributions to foreign policy; he played a large part in the settlement of the Santo Domingo financial problems in 1903, implemented the first trade agreement between the U.S. and Abyssinia, and worked on the Russo- Japanese War settlement. Loomis resigned as First Assistant Secretary of State in 1905, but continued to work on special missions State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 7 of 10 Resource Name or # 325 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L and, in 1908, became special envoy to Japan and chairman of the American commission to plan participation in the Tokyo Exposition. Upon returning to the U.S., he became involved with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In 1912, he was appointed U.S. Commissioner General to the Exposition at Turin, Italy and held a similar position with the Berlin International Exposition Congress. After an unsuccessful attempt to purchase the Oakland Tribune, Loomis' fascination with California prompted him to move his family to Burlingame in 1914. Thereafter, he became the foreign trade adviser to Standard Oil. Taking a more local focus, Loomis worked to promote better relations between European-American and Japanese-American citizens of California, and remained active in the Republican party. Francis B. Loomis retired in 1941 and died in 1948. The entire Loomis family appears to have occupied the house at 325 Chapin Lane from 1914 until Loomis' death. In 1925, city directories indicate that Francis Loomis, Jr. and his wife, Mary, and Florence Loomis lived at the property. Upon the patriarch's death, the house at 325 Chapin Lane passed to his widow, Elizabeth, who lived there until her own death in 1959. Ownership then passed to daughter Florence Loomis, who lived at the property until she died in 1985. Florence left the house to Stanford University and, at the time of transition, many neighbors expressed concern about the preservation of the house. Because it was located on almost an acre of land, it was feared that the house would be demolished and the parcel subdivided into four smaller lots. The Burlingame Planning Commission reacted by increasing minimum lot size from a quarter-acre to a half-acre in the area, so that the portion of the lot on which the house sits could not be subdivided. Subsequently, the western half of the lot (fronting on Pepper Avenue) was portioned off, sold, and developed, but the eastern portion was maintained and the house preserved. Stanford University sold the house to a private owner relatively quickly after being given ownership. The following list of owners of the property and their approximate dates of ownership was gathered from information provided by the Burlingame Historical Society. The Loomis family occupied the house for the entire tenure of their ownership. Other occupants are unknown: Unknown (1906-c.1914) Loomis, Francis B. (c.1914-1948) Loomis, Elizabeth (1948-1959) Loomis, Florence I. (1959-1985) Stanford University (1985) Michael H. and Davia M. Love (1985-2012) Nick Rogers (2012-present) Additions and Alterations Few major alterations have been made to the house since its construction in 1906. In 1936, an enclosed porch was added to the house. It is assumed this refers to a screened porch at the rear of the house that is shown on a site map on the 1961 Assessor's Office Appraisal Record. By 1961, the screened porch had been extended with an open porch that connected the house to a detached building labeled as “room and barn.” At a later, unknown date, these accretions onto the rear of the house were removed and replaced with the current one-story addition that consists of a long extension similar to that formed by the accretions, but is a uniform structure. Other alterations that occurred include interior alterations in 1986, the addition of a rear deck in 1990-1991 (this may have been when the current rear addition was created, as it appears to be of that era and is integrally associated with the deck), a swimming pool in 1997, and a kitchen and bath remodel in 2006. Additionally, the steel-sash windows at the northeast corner of the house appear to be alterations and are not reflective of the Craftsman style. The 1961 Appraisal Report notes that at that time the house had “original everything” and that “no remodeling had been done since improvement [enclosed porch?] was built. All three baths have original clawfoot tubs, original plumbing and electricity throughout, original wallpaper, etc.” Evaluation (Significance): The house at 325 Chapin Lane is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed locally. Constructed in 1906, the house at 325 Chapin Lane does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house does convey contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Burlingame Park, and is among the oldest homes in the neighborhood, but does not stand out as a first, only, or unique example of such development. A number of other houses in the area must also contribute to the theme of early development in Burlingame Park and are part of the area's general State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 8 of 10 Resource Name or # 325 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L establishment and growth. Therefore, the property does rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. The house at 325 Chapin Lane appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). Although the original owner is unknown, the house was owned for most of its history (approximately 71 years) by the Francis B. Loomis family. Francis B. Loomis was a national political figure who held many foreign consul offices and served as First Assistant Secretary of State to the United States. He was instrumental in foreign diplomacy and was responsible for a number of major advancements in trade relations, military negotiations, and economic settlements during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He achieved many of his positions and accomplishments before living in the subject house, but continued to be a respected foreign adviser and influential Republican party member while living at 325 Chapin Lane and was responsible for a number of more local diplomatic advancements concerning Japanese-American/European-American relations in California. For these associations with Francis B. Loomis, the subject house appears to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2. It does not appear rise to a level of significance that would make it eligible for listing in the National Register, because other properties may exist elsewhere in the United States that are also associated with Loomis and his accomplishments. However, within California, the subject property is the sole representation of his achievements and, therefore, best represents his role as a person of historical significance within the state. The house at 325 Chapin Lane appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The building is a good example of the size and quality of residences constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood and displays architectural features identified with the Craftsman style. On Chapin Lane alone, it is one of a number of Craftsman style houses, thereby contributing to a context of that aesthetic in the immediate area. However, it stands out by being a larger, more ornate, and unique example among the other smaller and more typical bungalow-form houses. Additionally, the subject property's large lot size is an interesting vestige of the early development of the neighborhood that is not seen in more standard-sized surrounding lots and can be considered a significant physical trait of the property that makes it significant within Burlingame Park. The architect and builder are unknown and cannot be considered masters, but the house otherwise rises to a level of significance to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3. It does not appear rise to a level of significance that would make it eligible for listing in the National Register, because other properties likely exist elsewhere in the United States that qualify as better examples of the Craftsman style, but within Burlingame,California, 325 Chapin Lane represents a strong and intact example of the style. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 325 Chapin Lane for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. Evaluation (Integrity): The house at 325 Chapin Lane retains integrity of location and setting. It is situated on its original lot, and the surrounding Burlingame Park neighborhood remains a residential area characterized by single-family houses. The property has undergone few alterations since its construction, with only additions on the rear facade representing any notable exterior changes. Therefore, integrity of design, materials, and workmanship are intact. The house remains in use as a residence associated with the early twentieth-century residential development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood, and therefore retains integrity of feeling and association. Overall the property retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance. Character Defining Features: For a property to be eligible for national or state designation under one of the significance criteria, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. To be eligible, a property must clearly exhibit enough of those characteristics, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms of form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. The character-defining features of 325 Chapin Lane include:  Rectangular, box-like massing;  Two-and-a-half stories;  Broad gable roof with gable dormers on either side;  Open eaves with exposed rafter tails, purlins, and knee braces;  Wood-frame construction;  Wood shingle cladding;  Wood-sash windows in casement and double-hung configurations;  Recessed porch at center of first story on primary facade;  Recessed angled bay with brick panel on left side of first story of primary facade;  Gabled window hood on second story of primary facade. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 9 of 10 Resource Name or # 325 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Conclusion 325 Chapin Lane appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2. The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “3CS” has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was “found eligible for California Register as an individual property through survey evaluation.” This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth-century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood’s eligibility as a historic district. *B12. References: - Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. - Building Permit Records, 325 Chapin Lane, Burlingame, CA - Burlingame City Directories. - Burlingam Historical Society files. - Burlingame Planning Department, Property file: 325 Chapin Lane. - Bulingame Property Owner Cards, Burlingame Historical Society. - Carey & Company. “Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan.” February 19, 2008. - Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004. - Evans, Beverley L., ed. Burlingame: Lively Memories- a Pictorial View. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 1977. - Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007. - McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. - Online Archive of California, “Loomis (Francis B.) Papers.” - Parcel History, San Mateo County Hall of Records, Redwood City. - “Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame.” July 26, 1982. - United States Federal Census records: 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930. - San Mateo County Assessor Records. - Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921, 1949. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 10 of 10 Resource Name or # 325 Chapin Lane *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 15, 2013  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Historic Maps and Photographs: 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 325 Chapin Lane outlined in red; edited by author. 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 325 Chapin Lane outlined in red; edited by author. 1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94111 415.362.5154 / 415.362.5560 fax 2401 C Street, Suite B Sacramento, California 95816 916.930.9903 / 916.930.9904 fax 417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211 Los Angeles, California 90013 213.221.1200 / 213.221.1209 fax ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & RESEARCH MATERIALS CONSERVATION www.page-turnbull.com 1 of 2 -----Original Message----- From: Barrett Foster [mailto:bfoster@brightedge.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 9:25 AM To: CD/PLG-Lewit, Erika Cc: 'Foster, Aimee Bourke (AFoster@frk.com)'; Aimee Bourke Subject: 1548 Meadow Lane - Planning commission Meeting 10/14 - Neighbor Reccomendation Letter Hi Erika, I hope that you are well and it is nice to meet you. One of our neighbors wrote us a recommendation and I was told that I should send it to you in advance of the meeting tomorrow. We live at 1548 Meadow lane and our project is part of the meeting agenda for tomorrow 10/14. I will call you today to follow up; thank you and of course please let me know if you have any questions. Have a great day! Best, Barrett Barrett Foster email:bfoster@brightedge.com | mobile: 650.766.9105 | fax: 650.645.6305 | address: 999 Baker Way Suite 500, San Mateo, CA 94404 SEO blog: http://seo-blog.brightedge.com 10.14.14 PC Meeting Item #9a 1548 Meadow Lane Page 1 of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED OCT 14 2014 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. 2 of 2 Burlingame Planning Commission, 10/13/14 My name is Eric Botelho, I am the home owner of 1529 Meadow lane .I am writing this letter in full support of the project that the Fosters would like to do at their home 1548 Meadow lane. Our street has gone through some transformation over the last couple of years, many of the older houses have been remodeled and /or added on to. I believe their project would only enhance the ongoing changes in our neighborhood. I hope you can support their wishes as well and grant them the permits needed to build their family home. Sincerely Eric Botelho 10.14.14 PC Meeting Item #9a 1548 Meadow Lane Page 2 of 2 PROJECT LOCATION 770 Walnut Avenue Item No. 9c Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 770 Walnut Avenue Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permits for an attached garage and basement ceiling height for a new two-story single family dwelling and attached garage. Applicant and Architect: Randy Grange, TRG Architects APN: 028-141-190 Property Owners: Jon and Tamar Miller Lot Area: 9,204 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The proposal includes demolishing an existing two-story house and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a basement and detached garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 4,033 SF (0.44 FAR) where 4,045 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch and basement exemptions). The proposed project is 12 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR. The proposed two-story house will have a 679 SF basement. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for a basement ceiling height of greater than 6'-6", where the proposed basement ceiling height is 10'-0". The top of the finished floor above the basement is less than 2’-0” above existing grade and therefore the basement floor area exemption applies to this space. A total of 679 SF has been deducted from the FAR calculation (the maximum allowable exemption is 700 SF). The proposed attached garage provides two code-compliant covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house (three off-street parking spaces are required for a five-bedroom house, two of which must be covered). There is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (1));  Special Permit for an attached two-car garage (CS 25.26.035 (a)); and  Special Permit for a basement ceiling height that is greater than 6'-6" (10’-0” ceiling height proposed) (CS 25.26.035 (f)). 770 Walnut Avenue Lot Area: 9,204 SF Plans date stamped: September 19, 2014 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): (attached garage): 32'-6" 32'-6" 46’-8” 32'-0" (block average) 32'-0" (block average) 35’-0” for double-wide garage door Side (left): (right): 4'-0" 4'-6" to porch posts 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 70'-11" 78'-5" 15'-0" 20'-0" Item No. 9c Design Review Study Design Review and Special Permits 770 Walnut Avenue -2- 770 Walnut Avenue Lot Area: 9,204 SF Plans date stamped: September 19, 2014 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Lot Coverage: 2462 SF 26.7% 3682 SF 40% FAR: 4033 SF 0.44 FAR 4045 SF 1 0.44 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 --- Basement: basement with a ceiling height greater than 6'-6" (10’-0” ceiling height proposed) ² Special Permit required per C.S. 25.26.035 (f) Off-Street Parking: 2 covered, attached ³ (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 26’-3" 30'-0" DH Envelope: Complies using window enclosure exception along right side of house. C.S. 25.26.075 ¹ (0.32 x 9204 SF) + 1100 SF = 4045 SF (0.44 FAR) ² Special Permit requested for a basement ceiling height that is greater than 6'-6" (10’-0” ceiling height proposed). ³ Special Permit required for an attached garage. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; Design Review and Special Permits 770 Walnut Avenue -3- (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Applications Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 3, 2014 Aerial Photo PROJECT LOCATION 1548 Los Montes Drive Item No. 9d Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits Address: 1548 Los Montes Drive Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for construction of a new single-family dwelling and attached garage. Applicant and Designer: Farnaz Khadiv, Khadiv Design Studio APN: 027-015-180 Property Owner: Jiries Hanhan Lot Area: 9,494 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The proposal includes demolishing an existing two-story house and attached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 4,138 SF (0.44 FAR) where 4,138 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch exemption). The proposed project is at the maximum allowed FAR. The lot slopes downward approximately 31’-0” from the front of the lot to the rear. The point of departure for the declining height envelope is based on the average of the front and rear property corner spot elevations at each side. Due to the downward slope of the lot, the point of departure for the declining height envelope at each side of the house is several feet below the lower level of the house. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a Special Permit for declining height envelope along the right and left sides of the house. The right side of the house would extend 81 SF beyond the declining height envelope; the left side of the house would extend 1,007 SF beyond the declining height envelope (560 SF on the upper floor, 328 SF on the lower floor, 51 SF covered balcony and 68 SF of the rear deck). The proposed four-bedroom house requires a total of two parking spaces, one of which must be covered. The proposed attached garage provides two code-compliant covered parking spaces (20’ x 20’ clear interior dimensions). There is also one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. Therefore, the proposed project complies with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (1));  Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.61.020);  Special Permit for declining height envelope along right and left sides of house (right side of the house extends 81 SF beyond the declining height envelope; the left side of the house extends 1,007 SF beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.26.075 (a)); and  Special Permit for an attached two-car garage (CS 25.26.035 (a)). This space was intentionally left blank. Item No. 9d Design Review Study Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive -2- 1548 Los Montes Drive Lot Size: 9,494 SF Plans date stamped: October 6, 2014 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): (attached garage): 20'-0" to porch 25'-0" 25’-0” 19'-11" (block average) 20'-0" 25’-0” for two single-wide doors Side (left): (right): 7'-4" 7'-4 1/4" 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 62'-9" to deck 74'-0" to deck 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2886 SF 30.3% 3798 SF 40% FAR: 4138 SF 0.44 FAR 4138 SF 1 0.44 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered, attached ² (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 17’-5" 30'-0" DH Envelope: right side of the house extends 81 SF beyond the declining height envelope; left side of the house extends 1,007 SF beyond the declining height envelope ³ C.S. 25.26.075 ¹ (0.32 x 9,494 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4138 SF (0.44 FAR) 2 Special Permit requested for an attached garage. 3 Special Permit requested for declining height envelope along right and left sides of house (right side of the house extends 81 SF beyond the declining height envelope; the left side of the house extends 1,007 SF beyond the declining height envelope. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Engineering, Parks and Stormwater Divisions. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Farnaz Khadiv, Khadiv Design Studio, designer Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive -3- Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Applications Information Sheet for Membrane Roof, date stamped October 2, 2014 Photographs of Neighborhood Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 3, 2014 Aerial Photo From: greg.lim@comcast.net [mailto:greg.lim@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:56 PM To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben Cc: greg.lim@comcast.net Subject: 1548 Los Montes Dr. Dear Ruben, I live at 1552 Los Montes, on the downside of 1548 Los Montes. I have two concerns: 1. Their existing retaining wall is already leaning quite a bit. If the retaining is not replaced or reinforced during the building of their new home, I am concerned that the retaining wall will fall down and their house will slide into ours. 2. Water runoff: When it rains, our house gets quite a bit of runoff from their property as we are situated lower than they are. I wish them the best in their new construction and look forward to seeing their new home. Thank you, Greg Lim (1552 Los Montes Dr.) 10.14.14 PC Meeting Item #9d 1548 Los Montes Drive Page 1 of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED OCT 14 2014 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV.