The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2718 Easton Drive - Environmental DocumentCITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 r '� 6URLINGAME � 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 �� d V�FrBm: City of Burlin�ame County Clerk of San Mateo Communitv Development Department �1GT 22 2015 Plannins Division 501 Primrose Road �� °�� Burlin�ame, CA 94010 Subject: Project Location: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-586-P) 2718 Easton Drive — Construction of a New Single Family Dwelling 2718 Easton Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The proposal is to demolish the existing two-story single family dwelling and construct a new two story single family dwelling with an attached garage at 2718 Easton Drive, zoned R-1. The subject property fronts on Easton Drive, however vehicular and pedestrian access is from Alvarado Avenue. There is a staircase that provides a public right-of-way for pedestrian access from Alvarado Avenue to Easton Drive. The subject property slopes up from Easton Drive to Alvarado Avenue with an approximately 22.6% slope, and therefore does not qualify for exemption from CEQA. The steepest portion of the lot is along Easton Drive and contains several large trees including, Pine, Cedar and Oak trees. There are six (6) trees proposed for removal with this project, however none of those trees meet the City's definition of a protected tree. An arborist report has been prepared for this site. The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 3,637 SF (0.44 FAR) where 3,690 SF (0.45 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project includes an attached two-car garage (20'-0" x 20'-0" clear interior dimensions) which will provide two code-compliant covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') in the driveway). Approval of a Special Permit is required for attached garages. In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby given of the City's intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A mitigated negative declaration is a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effect on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid effect or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of an Initial Study and mitigations, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available for public review at City F�all, 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 November 11. 2015. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the end of the 20-day review on November 11. 2015. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing to: William Meeker, Community Development Director City of Burlingame Community Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Fax: (650) 696-3790 / Email: wmeeker(a)burlin�ame.or� Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period described above. Public Hearing: The City of Burlingame Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and this project on Monday, November 23, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame CA 94010. Posted: October 22. 2015 2718 EASTON DRIVE INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA� 1. Project Title: 2718 Easton Drive — Demolition of an Existing Single Family Dwelling and Construction of a New Single Family Dwelling 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 4. Project Location: 5. Assessor's Parcel Number: 6. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 7. General Plan Designation: 8. Zoning: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Catherine Barber, Senior Planner Telephone: (650) 558-7250 E-Mail: cbarber@burlingame.org 2718 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 027-194-1000 James Chu, Chu Design Associates 55 W. 43`d Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Low-Density Residential R-1 9. Description of Project: The proposal is to demolish the existing two-story single family dwelling and construct a new two story single family dwelling with an attached garage at 2718 Easton Drive, zoned R-1. The subject property fronts on Easton Drive, however vehicular and pedestrian access is from Alvarado Avenue. There is a staircase that provides a public right-of-way for pedestrian access from Alvarado Avenue to Easton Drive. The subject property slopes up from Easton Drive to Alvarado Avenue with an approximately 22.6% slope. The steepest portion of the lot is along Easton Drive and contains several large trees including, Pine, Cedar and Oak trees. There are six (6) trees proposed for removal with this project, however none of those trees meet the City's definition of a protected tree. A protected tree is defined in C.S. 11.06.020 as any tree with a circumference of forty-eight (48) inches or more when measured fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade or a tree or stand of trees so designated by the City Council based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor. An arborist report has been prepared for this site. The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 3,637 SF (0.44 FAR) where 3,690 SF (0.45 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project includes an attached two-car garage (20'-0" x 20'-0" clear interior dimensions) which will provide two code-compliant covered parking spaces for the proposed five- bedroom house and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') in the driveway). Approval of a Special Permit is required for attached garages. Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive The height limit for the R-1 zoning district is 30 feet or 2% stories, whichever is less. C.S. 25.26.060(a) requires height to be measured from the average top of curb elevation to the top of ridge. There are code provisions that allow height to be measured from an average elevation 15 feet behind the front property line; however this applies to lots that slope upward more than 25% from the front property to the rear property line. The subject property has an average slope of 22.6% and does not qualify for this aiternative measurement. The proposed height, measured from the average top of curb elevation is 46'-2". C.S. 25.26.060(a)(2) requires approval of a variance for any structure of 36 feet or taller. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The subject property is located in the Easton Addition subdivision in the City of Burlingame. The zoning is R-1 and the surrounding neighborhood contains single family homes. The site currently contains a single family dwelling with an attached garage. The lot has an Easton Drive address, but is access from Alvarado Avenue. The subject slopes up from Easton Drive with an approximately 22.6% slope. The subject property is surrounded by single family residential properties, with primarily two-story homes. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): The proposed project would require Planning Commission approval for design review, special permit for an attached garage and variance for height for the new single family dwelling. A building permit will be required from the City of Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division, for construction of the single family dwelling. An encroachment permit from the Burlingame Public Works Department will be required for any work within the public right-of-way. There are no other permits required by any other public agency. 2 � `� `y j � ` ' ryco`�� ' �� ` '� V`'�`�� _� . �`` .�� . ' ;�� '� � �� j -: O�� 'J'U'y , e. � .�� ` - - , 7`� � !�`� `�� ' `� �7 a� � � ., O� � ;� '� � , � � � � �� ry�O^ � i e `� 3v�� `� , � '� �- ' � , �/ `� - � ��`�2 . � � h- ' s O : • �� ~� " - , A` � � /,� 7 � �"7� �"§�` e .� � } ,. �p� f � - � + � �, � � �. 4 t � � ��. � � �L . �� . � . ��2 � � t# � � � � `= :. � ��,�� ' � � - ^h _ � - _O ^ � .: - . . ;r � , . �L z -�.� � . : 7�� #� '.., .4i � �. g. .. .. ' . ... -'�� r_� � , .._� Af*. R... � ¢ � � %'�17� ; - ^ !1V �8 �, 4. , ,� ' 6 V . � +� '�� , �'� � +.- v:� +` � � � � � � �� ' ` , - 7�/' s'a� � � . _ � T� r-.y . . \ f ��_ �,; �`5"�_�; a f . _� ,��:. � _� ` ��'�`��2 �,�08 _ � 0�,, � ` '`� . � � � � �. , 'L� �� •� � � � � � � V 2� �' ,�', � � �' p � - . . � _ �-�/ . ' a � . ��`. �'�'� � �� ' �p� � � t � �� , . . : �, ,. `L . e -� �x��' ..� �� < �:. ,� �4� �, � ��, ,`�� - � � , s�y � � ,. • �, `l, � O�� Og .. � �84� �• � - �, �g '` � � w= �' � ...; � ' , �, �� •��} � O� �, _� � t� � H L�SI�� $1 _ �; ••._._� ��C �f _ �� I � ` `� `L � � � �� F. �.. � �, .�'�� . ` � :� ��,. � �OD - . `L �`,� � ��,L� � � � . . . s,� _ ; . . . , � �: . , ,�°'� ' ��1 � - ` � � .. r Fn �a �" * � � I�1 e _ = ,�� _ � _ :; �� 2s13 ��, _ • - .;-�. � � �- ��: � �4 � : � - $ � �, ;�� " - - ' ` � � � . _ x'"� • . • � ' ¢ �- ' , � �" �� C�, GP�:.�:� �cacqx-� a � �e �e�-, `� C�IC�G�� l�L�w l�)r�c Gi�3e . °-� o o p[�C�v �Lp Initial Study �' a �s , ? � t 4 �j Y�H � , ; — � i :: T . e �; Z � ''� �o� � 5 �� . �i � �' � � A i _ �. ,, yQ m �. 8 � j � }E£4 gh � P 2 �� i d' � Q = �n �� `�i �v �� @3�� ': 2 1 . fy 4 � + � f : Q � � - 3 . 3 ; c x t 5� � � �� = ff�k a� ��:�$x '�' � � ; .a ; � o,� ` } , i �._' i `�£'' (J �� b �'n S � a� 3 z w �z �; F. 8 '��, ;}� � _a �x u �_€?bi t_._._,�_ .... -si � _ 3 � � � . �.� � � � -. ..� - . ' '� .- I . � � . - � �a;�A xi _ '" � -' � � \ 3 I � Y_'. , ti �. � a - '.,I.y+� `�� ° � ___ - , _ �� , ." � �� . . ". �..- ��,� ' ` J � _--' j e ' ' � ��Y J ' S � �� If � _ , P : �' la� i � , � I ._ ' ' t �gy , , 4 � - — - . � ' . 8 _ _ �,_,.� i , ��--- . � ; : ir f t . y`.`: � -' _ � � . � �t � � `, � � � � � � ! � ,_^1 ��ei, � `'`� � \ � ± �+� pl� L E .j d ill� . '., � _.i'' (��. y� Y �� au 9 � � £��5 �! � 9r � u .. ., �_ � _ ,e "1 3 �t a I �' ' ^a �� 1 - f � ' 9 5 '�9 ji W�'� � { � b �'�j -� � a i. w `' i �� — �� ' �—� : � 1: �; a ,`/ , 'a j�y„� g F,� 1r 5 g,, § i I,� `� y `��. + �"--` a �� k{'� } ' i � ;' } ; 1` . 1 _ k �� ' , 4 � !I , . � �� t � � �x-- � .h'�a �� a� 3 �s�' g8.:,' ` � ��4 ��- 1 � ru :1 �e .. � y � �. 1 0 � t t s � j $ �}`_-�,-,a � . � �^ a +ny � ��t�� a � � ,� � �� . /j x � !L � � •� �:1 �I J {f � �t, � � �'�r � � ti l ��x �1, � S. . i� �'��r � �� f; ,'�.S � � '� � �_.., r � �� --� �.____ �; , , F � ; , � : ; , gYq,�_; ,�SJ £ i� �/! � �..U�„ � � � �ii ' ii � �LL: . x � 3III I � 3�`r^� ip. " L \�.. ry. �R�f y, 1 1. 4�;r U I�� y �� .� � �� 1 �: d��n�4 � yg vl� - � � �_ �l S��_ ,' �� 'l k l. A� : i F �� - � \ ', / 1 � � f' :�" a c . _ ' �"`�. � ' ��^", ' - '.� c � } . � � e �� ° � c =--' °��: Y� rs�� ,� ` j ,_ J ,_ - - . - ��;' �,,�� \ •� O' _r ' \'- : . .. P, - F i� ' o..�-,._- - � _"1� �' ""`-1`_`' ` w �,�2�i c. � a z �f ', j � .. ° a a , �' Figure 2 — Site Survey 4 2718 Easton Drive �pVE R ' r` �T'�-'�� - _.. i � � i ! c 8 i Jt t_� �� , = i i �} S � I � F i � Y ti �. 3 l�� y 3 : �j� { '. _ � ' oT'- 4� _� ,.. g( � k , � q� � [ i ��' � � ��; f 'b g ' („r� � , . ! � ', � f j I r f - 1 4�� i : i i I � ' I I I a� ` i . i� � � i I � ,i - � a I r� i 93 f`' � 1 -� �r � $ I i , 3,If I;3� > I B I` �`�- � � _— O i �N E � a � I �� y �' i ��f%f ' i � ;�= �:. / a jr! ; : . 4 . �a � .. i ;� t . Initial Study Environmental Impacts Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 2718 Easton Drive The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation / Traffic � Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials � Mineral Resources � Public Services ❑ Utilities/Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Air Quality � Geology / Soils � Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Noise � Recreation � Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. � I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. � //��:�'�� Signature William Meeker Printed Name October 21, 2015 Date Citv of Burlin�ame For 5 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive Summary of Mitigation Measures 2718 Easton Drive Environmental Factor Mitigation Measure Aesthetics Mitigation Measure 1a: The project sponsor shall be subject to the design review process to evaluate the aesthetics of the construction of a single family dwelling in the R-1 Zoning District. Mitigation Measure 1b: The landscaping shall be provided on the site as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission. All landscaping shall be installed prior to scheduling the final building inspection. Air Quality Mitigation Measure 3a: During construction, the project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off- site shall be covered. c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry sweeping is prohibited. d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting off equipment when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 0 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive Summary of Mitigation Measures 2718 Easton Drive Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 4a: The applicant shall comply with the City's on-site reforestation requirements as approved by the City Arborist. Mitigation Measure 4b: The property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, LLC, dated February 18, 2015. All tree protection measures shall be taken prior to beginning any tree removal activities, grading or construction on the site. Mitigation Measure 4c: All clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones trees, and drainage courses are clearly delineated with field markers or fencing installed under the supervision of a licensed arborist and inspected by the City Arborist; and that adjacent properties and undisturbed areas shall be protected from construction impacts with vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes or mulching as designed by and installed with the supervision of a licensed arborist to standards approved by the City Arborist. Mitigation Measure 4d: A licensed arborist, hired by the applicant, shall inspect all root cuts; large roots or large masses to be cut shall be inspected and the arborist may recommend irrigation or fertilizing at that time; roots left exposed shall be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist. Cultural Resources 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. Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive Summary of Mitigation Measures 2718 Easton Drive 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. Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 6a: The project sponsor shall submit a detailed design level geotechnical investigation to the City of Burlingame Building Division for review and approval. The investigation shall include recommendations to develop foundation and design criteria in accordance with the most recent California Building Code requirements. All foundations and other improvements shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer based on site-specific soil investigations performed by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. All recommendations from the engineering report shall be incorporated into the residential development design. The design shall ensure the suitability of the subsurface materials for adequately supporting the proposed structures and include appropriate mitigations to minimize the potential damage due to liquefaction. Mitigation Measure 6b: There shall be no pile driving as part of this project. Mitigation Measure 6c: The foundation for the single family dwelling shall be a drilled pier and grade beam design. Mitigation Measure 6d: Grading activities shall be limited to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. Initial Study Summary of Mitigation Measures 2718 Easton Drive 2718 Easton Drive Mitigation Measure 6e: The project shall 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; and the construction plans and design shall be approved by the Building Division and all necessary permits issued before any grading, tree removal or construction occurs on the site. Hazards and Hazardous Mitigation Measure 8a: That the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a Materials fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station as required by the Fire Marshal prior to the final inspection for building permit. Hydrology and Water Mitigation Measure 9a: The project applicant shall prepare and quality implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following: a) A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; b) Soil stabilization hydroseeding, or blankets; techniques such as covering stockpiles, short-term biodegradable erosion control c) Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at downstream storm drain inlets; d) Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials, litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and e) The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. Mitigation Measure 9b: The project shall comply with Ordinance 1503, City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Mitigation Measure 9c: The project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscape Ordinance. Mitigation Measure 9d: That all surface storm water runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards as ., r. Initial Study Summary of Mitigation Measures 2718 Easton Drive adopted by the City of Burlingame. 2718 Easton Drive Noise Mitigation Measure 12a: 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. Mitigation Measure 12b: There shall be no pile driving as part of this project. Mitigation Measure 12c: The foundation for the single family dwelling shall be a drilled pier and grade beam design. Mitigation Measure 12d: To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the project sponsor shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures: a) Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible). b) Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. 10 Initial Study Project Approvals 2718 Easton Drive The project site is located within the City of Burlingame. The City of Burlingame is the Lead Agency responsible for approval of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project would require the following approvals and permits: ■ Design Review for construction of a new two- story single family dwelling and attached garage; ■ Variance for height; ■ Special Permit for an attached two-car garage; and ■ Building Permit for construction of a new two-story single family dwelling and attached garage. This space intentionally left blank. 11 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information Sourtes): 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 Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Signifitant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ U 0 2718 Easton Drive No Impact � ❑ � � The subject property is developed and is located in the Easton Addition subdivision of Burlingame. The lot slopes up from Easton Drive to Alvarado Avenue with an approximately 22.6% slope. The lot contains an existing two-story single family dwelling that is proposed to be demolished. The property is surrounded by single family residential properties to the east and west, as well as across the street, see Figure 1. The proposed project is located on the north side of Easton Drive, between Benito Avenue and Summit Drive. The property is located approximately 1.2 miles east of Interstate Highway 280, 1.00 mile east of Skyline Boulevard and approximately 2.0 miles west of US 101. Interstate Highway 280 as a State Scenic Highway and Skyline Boulevard are identified as Local Scenic Routes. Burlingame has scenic vistas associated with San Francisco Bay and the Western Hills. More specifically Easton Drive itself is part of a route identified as a County of San Mateo Scenic Roadway in the Scenic Roads and Highways Element of the City of eurlingame Genera/ Plan. The Scenic Roads and Highways Element define an Official State Scenic Highway and Official County Scenic Highways as follows: Scenic highways officially designated by the Scenic Highways Advisory Committee after application from local jurisdictions and only if on the list of eligible highways found in Section 263 of the Streets and Hi�hways Code. The following policies/guidelines are included in the General Plan to protect attractive views from scenic highways and scenic routes in and adjacent to the City of Burlingame: SR(5): Explore fully all practical regulatory approaches intended to protect views along scenic highways and Burlingame's scenic routes. SR(8): Plant materials should be used to screen or hide objectionable views. The proposed project will replace an existing house, located in relatively the same footprint and therefore would not be in violation of the policies and guidelines in the Scenic Roads and Highways Element of the City of Burlingame General Plan. The project site is surrounded by existing multi-story buildings as well as vegetation and trees. The property currently contains a total of 17 trees ranging in size from 6.9 to 34.3 inches in diameter. The applicant is proposing to remove a total of 6 trees on the property, none which are of a 12 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive protected size. However, the proposed Landscape Plan indicates that 2 new 36-inch box size and 1 new 24- inch box size landscape trees will be planted throughout the site as part of this project. In addition there are 11 existing trees to remain. Therefore, the impact on a scenic vista or scenic resources would be less than significant. The proposed house would cover 33.0% (2,675 SF) of the 8,096 SF lot, where 40% (3,238 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The proposed house and attached garage would have a total floor area of 3,637 SF (0.44 FAR) where 3,690 SF (0.45 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project includes an attached two-car garage (20'- 0" x 20'-0" clear interior dimensions) which would provide two code-compliant covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') in the driveway). The height limit for the R-1 zoning district is 30 feet or 2% stories, whichever is less. C.S. 25.26.060(a) requires height to be measured from the average top of curb elevation to the top of ridge. There are code provisions that allow height to be measured from an average elevation 15 feet behind the front property line; however this applies to lots that slope upward more than 25% from the front property to the rear property line. The subject property has an average slope of 22.6% and does not qualify for this alternative measurement. The proposed height, measured from the average top of curb elevation is 46'-2" and therefore requires approval of a variance for any structure of 36 feet or taller. The proposed project would replace an existing, two-story single family dwelling and is subject to design review for consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines. The proposed project was before the Planning Commission for Design Review Study and there were only minor comments made by the Planning Commission. The proposed design is similar to other homes on this block and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project site is located in the Easton Addition neighborhood, which is a built out single family subdivision. Sources of light in the area primarily come from existing single family dwellings. The project would be required to comply with exterior lighting regulations of Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 18.16.030, which requires that the cone of light be kept entirely on the property and use of shielded light fixtures. The project is replacing an existing single-family dwelling and 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 existing and proposed vegetation and trees. Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1a and 1b would reduce any impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 1a: The project sponsor shall be subject to the design review process to evaluate the aesthetics of the construction of a single family dwelling in the R-1 Zoning District. Mitigation Measure 1b: The landscaping shall be provided on the site as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission. All landscaping shall be installed prior to scheduling the final building inspection. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2015 edition. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 — Electrical Code, Burlingame, California, 2010 edition. 13 Initial Study Project plans date stamped August 7, 2015. Site Visit, August and September, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 2718 Easton Drive 14 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive Cess Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Signifitant Mitigation Signifitant Issues (and Supporting Informotion Sources): Impact Incorporation 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 7, 2015. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2015 edition. This space intentionally left blank. 15 Initial Study Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impatt Incorporation 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 � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � 2718 Easton Drive The proposed application is for the demolition of an existing single family dwelling and the construction of a new single-family dwelling on an existing site. Since this is a replacement of an existing single family dwelling it can be assumed that there will be no change in emissions. 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 The proposed project would be subject to the measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (listed below in Mitigation Measure 3a), which would reduce construction- related PM10 and PM2.5 emissions to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3a would also reduce the project construction dust emissions to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3a: During construction, the project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. j) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. k) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry sweeping is prohibited. I) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 16 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive m) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. n) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting off equipment when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCRj). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. o) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. p) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Sources The City of Burlingame Genera/ Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012. This space intentionally left blank. 17 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a su6stantial 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 substantialiy 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 wildiife 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 Less Than Signifitant or Significant Pofentiolly with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporotion 2718 Easton Drive Less Than Signifitant Impoct No Impact ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � The subject property contains a significant number of trees and foliage. Currently, there are a total of 17 trees located on site, ranging in size from 8.9 to 34.3 inches in diameter. The trees are primarily imported species, with the only native being a Coast Live Oak that is located toward the front right corner of the property, along Easton Drive. The remainder of the trees include Monterey Cypress (3), Deodar Cedar (1), Monterey Pine (4), Redwood (5), Black Acacia (1) and Pittosporum (2). Based on the proposed project plans, the applicant is proposing to remove a total of 6 trees on the property none of which are of a protected size. A tree report, prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, LLC, dated February 18, 2015 describes each tree and its condition, and includes recommendations for maintenance. The report also provides protection measures for the existing trees to remain. In his memos dated May 7 and August 12, 2015, the City Arborist notes that a tree removal permit will be required for removal of any protected size trees on the site. The applicant has submitted an arborist report that was reviewed and found acceptable by the City Arborist. 18 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with a single-family residence is required to provide a minimum of 1, 24-inch box-size minimum, non-fruit tree, for every 1,000 SF of living space. Based on the floor area proposed for this single family dwelling, a minimum of four landscape trees are required on site. In addition to the 11 trees to remain, the proposed Landscape Plan indicates that 2 new 36- inch box size landscape trees (Japanese Maples) will be planted along with one 24-inch box Princess Flower tree as part of this project. Therefore, the proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements. There are no creeks or other water bodies located on or directly abutting the subject property. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures 4a through 4e will reduce potential conflict with the tree preservation ordinance, and will ensure compliance with the City's reforestation requirements. Mitigation Measure 4a: The applicant shall comply with the City's on-site reforestation requirements as approved by the City Arborist. Mitigation Measure 4b: The property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, LLC, dated February 18, 2015. All tree protection measures shall be implemented prior to beginning any tree removal activities, grading or construction on the site. Mitigation Measure 4c: All clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones trees, and drainage courses are clearly delineated with field markers or fencing installed under the supervision of a licensed arborist and inspected by the City Arborist; and that adjacent properties and undisturbed areas shall be protected from construction impacts with vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes or mulching as designed by and installed with the supervision of a licensed arborist to standards approved by the City Arborist. Mitigation Measure 4d: A licensed arborist, hired by the applicant, shall inspect all root cuts; large roots or large masses to be cut shall be inspected and the arborist may recommend irrigation or fertilizing at that time; roots eft exposed shall be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist. Sources Arborist Report prepared by Kielty Arborist Service LLC, dated February 18, 2015 City of Burlingame, Parks Division Memoranda, dated August 12, 2015 and May 7, 2015. The City of eurlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title25—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 7, 2015. 19 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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 Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2718 Easton Drive No Impatt � � � � The subject property is currently developed with a single family dwelling that was constructed in approximately 1946. The surrounding properties have also been developed with single family residential uses for many years as well. 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 are not likely given that the proposed house will occupy roughly the same footprint as the existing house. Should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work will be halted until they are fully investigated. 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 formationsj. The project vicinity has been developed and no known paleontological resources have been recorded. Because the proposed project would result in minimal excavation, with less than 150 cubic yards of material to be graded and hauled off-site, significant paleontological discovery is unlikely. However, significant fossil discoveries can be made even in areas of presumed low sensitivity. The site contains no known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. However, it is impossible to be entirely sure about the presence or absence of human remains on a site until site excavation and grading occurs. Should any human remains be discovered during construction, work within 100 feet would be halted until they are fully investigated. 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 20 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive 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. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. This space intentionally left blank. 21 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 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 Significant or Potentially Signifitant Impact �❑ Less Than Significant with Mitigation Intorporation n ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Impact _� No Impact � � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ '�■�►/ 2718 Easton Drive The site is located in the Easton Addition subdivision which is built out with single family homes. The subject property slopes up from Easton Drive to Alvarado Avenue with a 22.6% slope. The lot is 8,096 SF in area and is accessed from Alvarado and Easton, with only pedestrian access along Easton. The difference in elevation from the top of the lot (Alvarado) to the bottom of the lot (Easton) is approximately 30 feet. The City of Burlingame is located in a seismically active region. Recent studies by the USGS indicate that there is a 63 percent mean probability of a Richter magnitude 6.7 or higher earthquake occurring in the Bay Area within the next 30 years, and a 21 percent mean probability that one or more earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6.7 or greater will occur on the San Andreas fault within the next 30 years. The project site could experience a range of ground shaking effects during an earthquake on one of the aforementioned Bay Area faults. An earthquake on the San Andreas Fault could result in very strong ground shaking intensities. Ground shaking of this intensity could result in moderate damage, such as collapsing chimneys 22 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive and falling plaster. Seismic shaking of this intensity can also trigger ground failures caused by liquefaction, potentially resulting in foundation damage, disruption of utility service and roadway damage. The project site is underlain by materials that can cause moderately high shaking amplification, and is immediately adjacent to an area considered by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to have a low to moderate potential for liquefaction (ABAG, 2008). A Soils Investigation (report) for the subject property was prepared by Capex Engineering Inc., dated January 29, 2015. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the soil conditions that occur at the site, and to provide geotechnical recommendations and design criteria pertaining to building foundations, site grading, retaining walls, drainage, and other items that relate to the site soil and geologic conditions. The report notes that one boring was drilled at the site to evaluate the geotechnical engineering characteristics of the soil layers which underlie the site. The State of California special study zones map for the site area (Montara Mountain revised official Quadrangle, 1982) indicates that the site is not located within any special study zone boundary for potential active earthquake faults. There are no indications of active faulting at the subject site. The closest mapped active fault is the San Andreas Fault located approximately 1.4 miles to the west. The site is located approximately 15 miles northwest of the Hayward Fault, but is not within the Alquist-Priolo zone. The seismic exposure will be reduced with the incorporation of seismic construction requirements of the California Building Code, 2013 Edition. The report notes that the soil conditions on-site include silty clay, which was found to the termination point of the boring (or 15-feet). There was no ground water encountered, but the report notes that ground water tables fluctuate depending on seasonal rainfall variations. Based on the soil type, density of the site soils and presence (or lack of) water the report concludes that the potential for liquefaction at this site is not a concern. The soils investigation concludes that the proposed development of this site is feasible with recommendations for the grading and compaction, foundation, drainage and irrigation and trenching. The report recommends that the new house be constructed with a pier and grade beam foundation. Drilled piers should be designed on the basis of a skin friction value of 500-psf beginning at the top of supporting material. The minimum pier spacing will be 3 pier diameters, center to center and the maximum pier space would be determined by an engineer based on the load distribution capacity of grade beams. The piers would be drilled and then poured in place. All pier excavations should be inspected and approved by a soil engineer prior to the placement of reinforced steel. The applicant notes that there would be approximately 150 cubic yards of cut hauled off-site, using a haul route approved by the Public Works. . The project would 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 Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6a -6e would ensure that the potential effects of groundshaking and liquefaction would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 6a: The project sponsor shall submit a detailed design level geotechnical investigation to the City of Burlingame Building Division for review and approval. The investigation shall include recommendations to develop foundation and design criteria in accordance with the most recent California Building Code requirements. All foundations and other improvements shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer based on site-specific soil investigations perFormed by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. All recommendations from 23 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive the engineering report shall be incorporated into the residential development design. The design shall ensure the suitability of the subsurface materials for adequately supporting the proposed structures and include appropriate mitigations to minimize the potential damage due to liquefaction. Mitigation Measure 6b: There shall be no pile driving as part of this project. Mitigation Measure 6c: The foundation for the single family dwelling shall be a drilled pier and grade beam design. Mitigation Measure 6d: Grading activities shall be limited to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. Mitigation Measure 6e: The project shall 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; and the construction plans and design shall be approved by the Building Division and all necessary permits issued before any grading, tree removal or construction occurs on the site. Sources The City of Burlingame Genera/ Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps, http://�is.aba�.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibilitv/, accessed December, 2013. Soil Investigation Report for Proposed New Residence at 2718 Easton Drive, prepared by Capex Engineering, Inc., dated January 29, 2015. 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 May 7, 2015. Project Plans date stamped August 7, 2015, the Planning Division. This space intentionally left blank. „ ' ��'. 24 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 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 Less Than Significanf Potentiolly with Less Than Signifitant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact � � 2718 Easton Drive 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, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. For single family dwellings, the 25 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive 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 (replacing an existing single family dwelling). 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, which is replacing an existing 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 ineeting 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. � Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources 2718 Easton Drive 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 May 7, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 27 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 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 Less Than Signifitant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mifigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2718 Easton Drive No Impact � � � � � � � � The proposed single family residential development would not involve the transport, use, storage or disposal of reportable quantities of hazardous materials. Future residents would likely use and store small quantities of household hazardous wastes (i.e., ammonia, paints, oils) which would not be considered significant. By its residential nature, this project will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. 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. An NPDES permit is required to ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways. 28 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive The Fire Marshal has required that the building be equipped with a residential fire sprinkler system. This requirement would reduce potential fire hazards for the project. Burlingame also participates in a county-wide mutual aid program for large-scale fires and related emergencies. There are three existing fire hydrants in the general vicinity to serve this property; one is located on Alvarado Avenue, in front of 1315 (kitty-corner to the subject property), one is located on the south side of Easton, just west of the subject property, and the third one is located east of the subject property at the western corner of Benito Avenue and Easton Drive. Mitigation Measures Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8a will ensure that fire hazards are reduced. Mitigation Measure 8a: That the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station as required by the Fire Marshal prior to the final inspection for building permit. 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, 2015 edition. State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, February 16, 2012. City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memorandum, dated May 7, 2015. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, San Mateo County Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire), Map NHD-41, January 06, 2000. Project plans date stamped August 7, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. � Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive Less Than Significant or Significant Potentiolly with Less Than Significant Mitigation Siqnificant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � I�-/1 This proposal is to demolish the existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling with an attached garage. The project site is located in Flood Zone X, which is outside the 100-year flood zone. The soils investigation notes that groundwater was not encountered in the boring at the time of drilling. However, it points out that groundwater levels tend to fluctuate seasonally, and could rise to the depths explored in the future. But, because of the strong subsurface materials and the absence of subsurface flows, it is unlikely that liquefaction of the foundation soils would occur on this site. 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. The subject property is currently developed with an existing single family dwelling and would not result in significant increases in storm water flows such that new systems would be required. The Public Works 30 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive Department, Engineering Division, requires that the site and roof drainage be made to drain towards the storm drain system. Since the subject property is downward sloping, all site and roof drainage would be directed to Easton Drive. Storm water from the site is currently collected by a catch basin located on Easton Drive where it flows to a 12-inch storm drain line. Because the proposed project includes retaining most of the trees on-site and would maintain soft landscaping around the proposed structure, stormwater runoff is not anticipated to increase as a result of the project. Therefore, stormwater generated on the proposed project site is not expected to impact existing stormwater drainage facilities. The project includes demolition of an existing single family dwelling and construction of a new residence in relatively the same footprint, therefore the proposed project would no result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface. The project would need to have an erosion and sedimentation control plan that describes BMPs, (best management practices) that will be implemented for storm water management and erosion control. This plan would need to be shown and describe what type of erosion control measures would be administered to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering storm drain systems and how these measures would be maintained. These measures may include, but not be limited to, the following: sediment basins or traps, berms, silt fences, straw bale, storm drain inlet protection soil blankets, and covers for soil stock piles. These measures need to be installed to stabilize denuded areas and to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established. Implementation of the mitigation measure below would reduce potential construction-related impacts to less-than-significant. 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 would 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 Mitigation Measure 9a would reduce potential construction-related impacts to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measures 9b-9d would reduce stormwater and water use impacts to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 9a: The project applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following: f) A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; g) Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets; h) Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at downstream storm drain inlets; 31 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials, litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and j) The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. Mitigation Measure 9b: The project shall comply with Ordinance 1503, City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Mitigation Measure 9c: The project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscape Ordinance. Mitigation Measure 9d: That all surface storm water runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards as adopted by the City of Burlingame. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. City of Burlingame, Municipa! Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.20 — Grading, Excavation, Fills, Burlingame, California. Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, October 16, 2012. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memorandum dated May 4, 2015. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memoranda dated August 24, 2015 and May 5, 2015 Project plans date stamped August 7, 2015. This space intentional/y left blank. 32 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 2718 Easton Drive Less Than Significant or Signifitant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Intorporation Impact No Impoct �� H■ �■ �/ �1 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 proposal includes demolishing the existing single family dwelling and constructing a new two-story single family dwelling. The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF for lots in this area, based on City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712, and this lot is 8,096 square feet in area. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The proposed single family residential project is subject to design review, a special permit for an attached garage, and a parking variance. The Planning Commission will review the project and determine compliance with design review guidelines and if the findings can be made for the special permit and variance requests. The general plan would allow a density of 8 units to the acre and the application is for one single family dwelling on 0.18 acres. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The proposed 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. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources Project plans date stamped August 7, 2015. The City of Bur/ingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2015 edition. 33 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation 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. This space intentionally left blank. 34 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 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? Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impoct Intorporation Impact ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � � ❑ ❑ 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 � � ❑ ❑ ❑ 2718 Easton Drive No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � � The subject site currently contains and single family dwelling. The surrounding area is developed with single family dwelling. With the replacement of the existing dwelling with a new 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 would be compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. Construction of the proposed single family dwelling would be upon drilled, cast-in-place, reinforced concrete pier and grade beam foundations, and therefore would not require pile driving or other significant vibration causing construction activity. It is estimated that the foundation with pier drilling will take approximately two weeks to complete. Construction staging would occur on Alvarado Avenue with materials primarily stored in the driveway. Construction workers would park on Easton Drive. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the Burlingame 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. 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. 35 Initial Study Mitigation Measures 2718 Easton Drive Implementation of Mitigation Measures 12a through 12d would reduce temporary construction noise impacts to less-than-significant levels. Mitigation Measure 12a: 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. Mitigation Measure 12b: There shall be no pile driving as part of this project. Mitigation Measure 12c: The foundation for the single family dwelling shall be a drilled pier and grade beam design. Mitigation Measure 12d: To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the project sponsor shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures: c) Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible). d) Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. Sources The City of eurlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Tit/e 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California. Chief Building Official Memos dated May 7, 2015. Soils Investigation, prepared by Capex Engineering Inc., dated January 29, 2015 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped August 7, 2015. 36 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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 orotherinfrastructure)? 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 Cess Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigotion Significant Impact Incorporation Impatt ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ n ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2718 Easton Drive No Impact � � � This site and the surrounding area are planned for and fully developed with low-density residential uses. The proposed demolition of an the existing single family dwelling on the property and construction of a new single family dwelling conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations (with the exception of a request for special permit for an attached garage and a variance for height). Construction of the project will not result in any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element and would upgrade the existing housing stock. The project would not induce substantial population growth as it does not increase the density of development upon the site. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on population and housing. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources Project plans date stamped August 7, 2015. 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, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 37 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 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? Siqnifitant or Potentially Sigrtificant Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Siqnifitant with Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impoct �/ �/ �1 �1 // Discussion 2718 Easton Drive The subject property currently contains a single family dwelling and is located in the Easton Addition within the City of Burlingame. The proposed project includes demolishing the existing single family dwelling on the site and constructing a new single family dwelling in relatively the same building footprint, therefore there would be a less than significant increase in the total population of the City. There would be no impact on existing public and governmental services in the area given that the intensity of development is not increasing due to the project. Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which also serves the Town of Hillsborough and the City of Millbrae. 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, would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities, and would have additional fire protection measures in place with the new house being fully sprinklered, the project would have no impact on fire protection services. Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department, located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project would replace and existing single family dwelling therefore would not result in an increased demand for police services or require the expansion or construction of police facilities. The project would have no impact on police services given that it does not increase the density or type of development present upon the property. 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 38 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive replace an existing single family dwelling and would not result in any appreciable increase to the number of potential school-age children that could reside on-site. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact on schools. 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 the proposed project is a replacement of an existing residential unit, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other public facilities and therefore would have no impact. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of eurlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memorandum, dated May 7, 2015. City of Burlingame Website, www.burlin�ame.or�, accessed October 2015 This space intentionally left blank. 39 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive Less Than Signifitant or Signifitant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sourtes): Impact Incorporation Impatt No Impatt 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 proposal includes replacing an existing single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling and would not generate additional demand for parks or other recreation facilities given that there is no change in the use or density of development of the property. Therefore, there are no impacts to recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. This space intentionally left blank. 40 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporation 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? 2718 Easton Drive Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � 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 subject site is located at 2718 Easton Drive; however the main vehicular and pedestrian access is from Alvarado Avenue. There is a staircase that provides a public pedestrian access from Alvarado Avenue to Easton Drive. Main access to the property would continue to be from Alvarado Avenue; however the project does include the addition of a pedestrian entrance directly on Easton Drive. This project would not create an increase in the traffic generation in the area as it includes the removal and replacement of a single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling. 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. A total of five bedrooms are proposed in the proposed house. The project includes an attached two-car garage (20'-0" x 20'-0" clear interior dimensions) which would provide two code-compliant covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') in the driveway). Approval of a Special Permit is required for attached garages however the proposed project complies with off-street parking requirements for a single family dwelling with five bedrooms. 41 Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources 2718 Easton Drive The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Tit/e 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2015 edition. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012 Project plans date stamped August 7, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 42 Initial Study Issues (and Supportiny Information Sources): 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 Significant or Cess Than Potentially Significant with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2718 Easton Drive Less Than Significant Impatt No Impatt ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The subject property currently contains a single family dwelling and has all of the necessary utilities on-site. The proposed project would be served by existing utilities in place in the area. The site is currently serviced by a 6-inch vitrified clay sewer line that runs east along Easton Drive and serves the existing residence. This line has the capacity to accommodate the new single family dwelling. To prevent flooding a backflow prevention device is required to be installed. Currently the site is served by an 8-inch ABS water line; the new house would tie into this water service. There is adequate capacity in both the water and sewer systems to accommodate the new residence. The site is sloped steeply up from Easton Drive to Alvarado Avenue. The Public Works Department, Engineering Division, requires that the site and roof drainage be made to drain towards the storm drain system. There is an existing 12-inch storm drain easement that runs parallel to the west side property, below the City staircase that immediately abuts the property to the west. Since the subject property is downward sloping all site and roof drainage would be directed toward Easton Drive, along the front property line. The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing single family dwelling and construction of a new single family dwelling therefore, the project's impact to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant given that the use of the property and the density of the development of the site are unchanged. 43 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive 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. The site would continue to be served by Recology and would generate an approximately equivalent amount of waste as the existing single family dwelling therefore there would be no impact. Construction activities would generate waste during the demolition and 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 5, 2015. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memorandum dated May 5, 2015. Project Plans date stamped August 7, 2015. Recology San Mateo County, www.recolo�ysanmateocounty.com , site accessed October 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 44 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) b) 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? 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 Signifitant or Less Thon Potentially Significant with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ 2718 Easton Drive Less Than Signifitant Impact No Impact � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ �1 ��I � 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 that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The proposed project would contribute to environmental effects in the areas of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, a temporary increase in sedimentation and water quality effects during construction, temporary increases in construction- generated dust and noise, potential geology/seismic considerations with new development, and transportation/traffic. Mitigation measures incorporated herein mitigate any potential contribution to cumulative impacts associated with these environmental issues. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project may have significant adverse effects on human beings in the areas of air quality, noise and with geologic/seismic considerations with new development. Mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study would reduce the effects to a less than significant level. 45