The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2718 Easton Drive - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Variance and Special Permit Address: 2718 Easton Drive Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Meeting Date: November 23, 2015 Request: Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Special Permit for an Attached Garage and Variance for Height for a new, finro story single family dwelling an attached garage. Applicant and Designer: James Chu, Chu Design Associates Property Owners: Henry and Rui Chen General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-194-100 Lot Area: 8,096 SF Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The applicant is proposing to 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 currently contains a two- story single family dwelling and the lot 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, two (2) of those trees are considered protected. 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. The protected trees proposed for removal include one (1) Monterey pines and one (1) Pittosporum. An arborist report has been prepared forthis site and is attached for reference. 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. The height limit for the R-1 zoning district is 30 feet or 2'/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". C.S. 25.26.060(a)(2) requires approval of a variance for any structure of 36 feet or taller. All other zoning requirements have been met; the applicant is requesting the following applications: ■ Mitigated Negative Declaration, a determination that with mitigation measures there are no significant environmental effects as a result of this project; ■ Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (1) (4) i6)); • Special Permit for a new attached two-car garage (CS 25.26.035 (a)); and ■ Variance for height (25.26.060 (a)(2)). Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 2718 Easton Drive 2718 Easton Drive �ot Area: tt,U96 5r Plans date stam ed: November 18, 2015 ORIGINAL ORIGINAL PROPOSAL PROPOSAL ; ALLOWED/REQUIRED Date stamped 8/7/15 Date stamped 8/7/15 SETBACKS _ ( g ................... ... Front (1st flr): ,„ No change 15'-0" block avera e- 39'- 39 -5 (2nd flr): 2») 39'-5" 20'-9" (block average) ( ) ; 9 .............................. ................... .................... Side left : 7'-0" No chan e 6'-0" (right): 7'-0" 6'-0" ( ) .................. g .........................................._ . � ....�.�............................. Rear 1st flr : 31 -6 No chan e 15 -0 (2nd flr): N/A 20'-0" ;... ...... , ...... ....................... Lot Coverage: 2,675 SF No change 3,238 SF 33.0% 40.0% :.............................................................. _....................................................'........................................................................................ FAR: 3,637 SF No change 3 690 SF' 0.44 FAR 0.45 FAR 9. . . ........................... # of bedrooms: 5 No chan e ___ _.... Parking: 2 covered No change 2 covered (20' x 20') (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 (9' x 20') :...............................................................................................................................................:............................................................................................................................................... Building Height: 46'-2" 3 No change 20'-0" for lots that slope downward more than 25% ,...... ... DH Envelope: complies No change CS 25.26.075 ' (0.32 x 16,227 SF) + 1,100 SF = 6293 SF (0.39 FAR) Z Special Permit for an attached garage required. 3 Variance for 46'-2" height required. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on September 14, 2015, the Commission had a few comments and concerns with the project as summarized below (refer to attached September 14, 2015 minutes for full comments): • See if three large tree pine trees can be retained; • Consider entry off of the patio into the great room for visitors off of Alvarado Avenue; and • Consider balcony on Easton Drive elevation soften the massing and fit in. The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped November 18, 2015, along with a letter summarizing the changes made to the plans following the September 14, 2015 study meeting. In summary the applicant notes that the plans had been revised with the front walkway steps along Easton Drive realigned to save the pine trees, a balcony has been added to the front elevation (dining room) and a new pedestrian walkway has been added on the Alvarado Avenue side. 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 2718 Easton Drive Mitigated Negative Declaration: Section 15304, Class 4, of the California Environmental Quality Act exempts minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes, grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent, and gardening or landscaping that do not affect sensitive resources. Since the project involves grading on land with a slope greater than 10% (22.6% existing slope) and removal of protected- size trees, the project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission held an environmental scoping session for this project on September 14, 2015 in conjunction with design review study (refer to attached September 14, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes). Concerns expressed by the Commission were with regard to the construction staging. The Commission requested that contactors park along Easton Drive to minimize impacts on Alvarado Avenue and requested that tree protection measures be incorporated into the CEQA document. A neighbor spoke at the scoping meeting noting continuous construction in the area over the past several years and had concerns with dust, staging and compliance with mitigations. An Initial Study was prepared by Planning Division staff. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for review by the Planning Commission. As presented the Mitigated Negative Declaration identified issues that were "less than significant with mitigation incorporation" in the areas of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality and noise. Based upon the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project can be addressed by a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the Initial Study did not identify adverse impacts which could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review on October 22, 2015. The 20-day review period will end on November 11, 2015. There were no comments received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mitigation measures have been included in the CEQA document that addresses dust control, staging and tree protections. The mitigation measures in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval (see conditions in italics). Required Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. InterFace of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 2718 Easton Drive Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Variance Findings (Height Variance): The subject property is an upsloping lot with a 22.6% slope. Given these site conditions the finished floor of the existing house is approximately 30 feet above the curb level along Easton Drive. While the proposed house will be approximately 46'-2" above the average top of curb the house will be setback 39'-5" from the front property line which will minimize the visual impact. As measured from adjacent grade, the proposed house will be 27'-6" which is consistent with neighboring properties on the block and therefore the project as proposed will not be detrimental or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Given that there are exceptional conditions applicable to this lot, the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the required Variance criteria. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Suggested Special Permit Findings (Attached Garage): The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for an attached garage. The existing house has an attached garage that is accessed from Alvarado Avenue. The proposed garage will be in approximately the same location as the existing garage. The subject property has a 22.6% slope up from Easton Drive making the construction of a detached garage onerous, requiring significant excavation and additional tree removal. The attached garage is integrated with the design of the home and Is consistent with the pattern in the area; for these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 2718 Easton Drive considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 18, 2015, sheets A.1 through A.5, sheet L.1 and L.2, and Boundary Survey and Topographic Map; 2. that the area behind the lower floor is not excavated for use as living space or storage beyond the 21 SF room accessed from bedroom #1 to be used to store the forced air unit, as shown on the approved plan dated stamped November 13, 2015; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staf�; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's May 5, 2015 and October 24, 2015 memos, the Building Division's May 7, 2015 memo, the Parks Division's May 7, 2015 and August 12, 2015 memos, the Fire Division's September 14, 2015 memo, and the Stormwater Division's May 4, 2015 memos shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; �� Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 2718 Easton Drive THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; Mitigation Measures from initial Study Aesthetics 17. 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; 18. 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 19. 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 af 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 aftergrading unless seeding orsoil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized eifher by shuttrng off equipment when not in use orreducing 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. 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. � L �Hb'N ay��o sau��ap�n6 ay� pue `sanoy bZ u�y�inn pa►�i�ou aq��eys (�HyN) uo�ss�u.iu�o� a�6e�ua/-� ue�uau�y an��eN ay� `ue�uau�y an��eN aq o� aauoao� �f�uno� ay� �fq pau�uua�ap aae suiewaa au��/ 'aPo� ��a.��S pu� u�leaH s�e�uao�l/��0 5�050L uoi��as pue apo� sa�anosa� ��Ipnd a��S au� �0 86"L605 uo��as o�,6u�pao��e `�'�a�e�pauiun pa��i}ou aq ��eysaauoao� �f�uno� ay} pue auie6u��an8 �o �(;i� ay� pue pa��ey aq ��eys sa�anosaa ay��o �aa� 00� �f��n!��e 6uiqan�sip-punoa6 /�e `uo��na�suo� �o aseyd �'ue 6uunp sa��s uo��na�suo� ��a(oad �fue �e paaano�s�p aae su�ecuaa ueumy �� •gZ �auie6u��an8 �o �f�� ay� y��M uoi�e��nsuo� ui saanseau� �uau��eaa� a�eiadoadde do�anap `tiessa�au �► `pue pu�� ay��o a�ue��u�6�s ay� ssasse ue� �s�6o�o�uoa�ed pai��enb e ��un pu�� ay�,{o �aa� 00� u�y��M pue eaae �ey� u� do�s ��M �aoM `sa��in��e 6u�qan�s�p-punoa6 6uranp paaano�s►p aae suo�ssaaduu ao `sp�ou� `s�se� `s/�e�� `s��ea� `��ays `y�aa� `auoq pazi��sso� se y�ns `sa��nosaa �e�i,6o/o�uoa/ed �� gZ ��no pa�aae� s� sa�anosaa �e��6o�oaey�ae anb�un ao sa�anosaa /e�uo�s�y ao� uo►�e6��ui a/�yM a�is ��a�oad ay� �o s�ed aay�o uo paa�oad �feui �aoM �pa�n�i�su� aq ��ec/s (tiano�aa e�ep `�f �a) saanseau� a�eudoaddeaay�o `a�q�sea�u� s� a�uep�one�� suo��eaap�suo� aay�o pue `s�so� `u6�sap ��afoad `pui� ay; ,�o aan�eu ay� se c/�ns sao��e� �o �y6i� u� a�q�sea� pue iGessa�au s� a�uep�oneaay�aynn au�uua�ap��eys�f�ua6e pea� ay� `sa�anosaa/e��6o�oaey�ae anb�un ao sa�anosaa �e�uo}s►y o� s;�edun a�efi��ui o} aapao u� }s�6o/oaey�ae 6u��nsuo� ay� �(q pasodoad uo��e6��ui pa�sa�66ns �'ue 6uuap�suo� u� �uo��e �o asano� a;eudoadde au� au�u�aa�ap o� �aau� //ec/s �si6o/oaey�ae pai��enb e pue �f�� ay��o sani�e�uasaadaa `(apo� sa�anosa� �yqnd eivao�ye� ay��oZ'£80�Zuoi��asaadsa�anosaa�e��6o/oaey�aeanbiunseao(�][e]g��gpg� saui�ap�n� yb3�) }ue��u6�s aq o� pau�uua�ap si pui� �(ue �� pui� ay� �o a�ue�►��u6is ay� ssasse o� an►�e�uasaadaa ue�uauiy an�.}eN pue �si6o�oaey�ae pai��enb e y�inn ��nsuo� ��eus �f�� ay� `uoi�e�i��ou aa�e pue pa�/ey aq //et/s sa�anosa� ay� �o �aa,� 00� UlL/}lM �/JOM //L `sai��ni;�e 6u�qan�sip punoaF 6uunp paaano�s�p aae sa�anosaa �ean��n� a�e�nsqns �uo�siy ao �uo�s�yaad �'ue �ey� �uana ay� u/ •{,Z sa�anosaa �ean;�n� ��sioui �da� pue de�anq�o saa�(e� y��M paaano� aq ��eys pasodxa �a/ s�ooa `auq; �eu� �e 6u�z��a� ao uo��efua� puawu�o�aa �feu� �suoq�e ay� pue pa��adsu� aq ��e ys �n� aq o� sasseu� a6ae�ao s�ooa a�6ae� :s�n� �ooa ��e ��adsui ��eys `�ue��dde au� �fq paa�y `�suoqae pasua�� y •£Z ��suoqay �f�� au� �'q pano�dde spaepue�s o� �suoqae pasua�y e �o uo►s►Nadns au� y��M pa��e�su� pue �fq pau6isap se 6ui y��nw ao sa�ip `saa�� ao saauaeq �uaw�pas `sd►a�s aa�nq an��e�a,6an y��M s��edw� uo��na�suo� uioa� pa��a�oad aq ��eys seaae paqan�sipun pue sa��adoad �ua�e�pe �ey� pue `�suoqay�'�� ay� �iq pa;�adsu� pue �suoq�e pasua�i� e�o uo�s�naadns ay� aapun pa�/e�sui 6ui�ua� ao saa�/aeu� p�a�� y��nn pa�eau��ap �f�aea/� aae sasano� a6eu�eap pue `saaa� sauoz aa�}nq `seaae �e��u� ao an��suas `s��eq�as `s�uaurasea `s��u�� 6u�aeal� llb' �ZZ �a��s ay� uo uo►��na�suo� ao Fu�pea6 `sai�in��e /enocuaa aaa� �fue 6u�uu�6aq o�aoud ua�e� aq ��eys saanseaui uo��a�oad aaa� ��y 'g�OZ `8d ��naqa� pa�ep `�� `sa�inaas �suoqay �f��a�� fq paaeda�d �odaa �suoq�e ay� u� pau��ap se saanseau� uoi��a�oad aaa� ��e 6u�u�e�u�eu.� pue 6u��uawa�dw� ao� a�q�suodsaa aq ��eys aauMo �f�adoad ayl "dZ ��suoqa y �f�� ay� �fq panoadde se s�uau�aa�nbaa uo��e�saao�aa a}�s-uo s,�f;�� ay� y��M �'�du�o� //eys �ue�i�dde ayl �OZ sa�anosaa �e��6o�0�8 �suo��e�n6aa a/qe��dde y��n a�ue��dwo� aansua o� a�q�sin aq os�e��eysaaqumu auoyd s��u�s�pa�y ayl �sanoy gti uiy��M uoi��e an��aaao� a�/e� pue puodsaa ��eys uosaad s�yl �s�u�e�du�o� �snp �6u�pae6aa �f�ua6y pea� ay� �e ��e�uo� o� uosaad pueaaqumu auoyda�a� ay� y��nn u6►s a�q�s�n �f��qnd e�sod �y anup uo;se3 86LZ �i�.u�ad /ei�ads pue a�ueuen `nna�na� u6►sap `uoi�eae��aQ an��e,6aN pa�e�6i��W Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 2718 Easton Drive shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall a/so 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 27. The project sponsor shall submit a detailed design level geotechnical invesfigation to the Cify 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 otherimprovements 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 adequafely supporting the proposed structures and include appropriate mitigations to minimize the potential damage due to liquefaction. 28. There shall be no pile driving as part of this project. 29. The foundation for the single family dwelling shall be a drilled pier and grade beam design. 30. Grading activities shall be limited to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wef season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. 31. The project shall be required to meef 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 Materials 32. That the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station as required by the Fire Marsha/ prior to the final inspection for building permit. Hydrology and Water Quality 33. 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: 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) fo reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soi/s; b) Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets; 0 Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 2718 Easton Drive 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 propermanagement 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. 34. The project shall comply with Ordinance 1503, Cify of Burlingame Sform Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. 35. The project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscape Ordinance. 36. 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. Noise 37. 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. 38. There shall be no pile driving as part of this project. 39. The foundation for the single family dwelling shall be a drilled pier and grade beam design. 40. 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, equipmentredesign, use ofintake 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 fhey shall be muffled and enc%sed within temporarysheds, incorporate insulation barriers, orother measures to the extent feasible. Catherine Barber Senior Planner c. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer Henry & Rui Chen, property owners ,� Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 2718 Easton Drive Attachments: September 14, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Letter of Response to Planning Commission Comments, dated May 21, 2014 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application — Attached Garage Variance Application - Height Arborist Report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services LLC, dated February 18, 201 Mitigated Negative Declaration Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 13, 2015 Aerial Photo 10 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2015 Renaker, designer and appli ; Michelle and Michael Chrisman, property (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Eri ewit All Commissioners had visit the property. Commissioner Gum reported that he had ke applicant. Planning Manager G iner provided an overview of the project. ) with the Questions of . None. air DeMartini opened the public hearing. Pearl Renaker represented the applicant. Commissioner questions/comments: None. Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini c/osed t public hearing. Commission disc ion: > Adds ' ual interest to have the three windows on top. > N' sues with the Conditional Use Permits fo� the accessory > azed opening only facing fence - not a problem. Accessory structure use has been in existence for some tim Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded b Co Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sar , Terrones, C and toilet/shower. legalized now. ioner Loftis, to approve the Action and 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY �� a 2718 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Environmental review and Design Review for an Application for Design Review, Special Permit for an Attached Garage and Variance for Height for a new two-story single family dwelling (James Chu - Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Henry and Rui Chen, property owners, Henry and Rui Chen) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor to the right and the facing neighbor. Commissioner Gaul spoke to the neighbor at 1308 Alvarado Avenue. Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the project. Questions of staff.� None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. City of Burlingame Page 12 Printed on 11/9/2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2015 James Chu represented the applicant. > Special Permit for attached garage and Va�iance for height justified because of the site condition. > Entry from Easton. Commissioner questions/comments: > House is approximate/y same height as existing house? (Chu: Yes.) > Any way to retain the three large pine trees? They look healthy and significant. (Chu: Can talk to landscape architect.) > Expects there will be some visitors from Alvarado. Consider an entry off the patio into the Great Room as a secondary entry? The plan could still work; it would be the character of the doors. (Chu: Could add a porch element.) > Any thought of adding a balcony on the second floor? Lots of houses on that block have them looking out on the views. (Chu: Can look into it.) > Considered a window in Bedroom #2? Would look better from the outside and make the room more functional. (Chu: Had one originally but owner did not wanf it.) > Would like to save some of the trees. Public comments: Marco Romani, 1381 Hillside Circle, spoke on this item: > Over past four years there has been construction at 2710, 2714, and 2718 Easton. 2718 Easton will improve look of neighborhood and welcomes the change. > Concern with dust mitigation. Over past four years /ots of dust blowing into yard. Kitchen is full of dust when get home. > Dust control measures are required such as laying hay down on dirt to make sure dust is not generated. Make sure measures are enforced. > Southern part of Hillside Circle will be getting red curbs so no parking will be allowed. Right now construction workers park on circle, will need to park somewhere e/se. > Will have to bring construction equipment down Alvarado, may also block 2710 and 2714 Easton. Needs to be taken into account. Charr DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: Environmental review scoping: > Look closely at construction staging. Could mitigate by conditioning that the contractors park their vehicles on Easton to minimize impacts on Alvarado, but construction logistics will probably need to be from A/varado. > Concern with neighbors' construction not following required mitigation measures. (Kane: Neighbor should submit code enforcement complaint to City Aftorney.) > Make sure trees are protected with tree protection measures, including those on adjacent city easement next to the stairway. Design: > Extenuating circumstances with the height calculation. Sloping lot justifies variance based on how height is calculated. > Small house on top of slope, only one story. > Revisit patio/porch entry at top. > Balcony looking out over Easton would help with design. City of Burlingame Page 13 Printed on 11/9/2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2015 > Special Permit for aitached garage makes sense. Narrow entry from top, could not have a detached garage with slope of site. > Front of house does not seem to fit in with location. Balcony could help it fit in. > Low slung gab/e over Dining Room embraces the site, hope it stays. Adds a nice scale as going down stairs. This item will return on the Regular Action Calendar for action on the environmental review and project applications. b. 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MM - Design Review for an application f Environmental Review, Commer ' Design Review, Conditional Use Permit , r building height, Rear Setback � ariance and Parking Variance for a new � tory commercial building (Dimitri Sogas, applicant; Robert Lugliani, property; owner; Toby Levy Design Partners, a itect) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber All Commissioners had no other ex parte commu Senior Planner Barber Questions of statf.� None. property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the an overview of the project. Chair Dy�lartini opened the public hearing. Sogas represented the applicant. > Need for C/ass A office space near transit and the airport. ,� > Had neighborhood meeting in July. > Adding back more on-street parking on street by closi ' existing curb cuts. > Parking puzz/e stacker parking solution - integrate ystem, does not utilize pits. > Burlingame has "eclectic" architecture, not homg�``eneous. > Has a presence on the street. „�� Commissioner questions/comments: > Why so many colors? (Sogas: Toby Levy, Toby Levy Design will provide more information.) represented the architect: > Retail is neighborhood- ing. Three parking spaces would be assigned to retail by c > Parking for day-to-da sers, not many visitors. > Burlingame allows 10% reduction for car share. Would reduce to 63 spaces. > Water tab/e is 6 feet, so would be hard to go further below ground oulc probably make pr ct infeasible. > Could eli � ate parking to provide all required parking but considers this I desirab/e. > Plaza h been redesigned to be more accessible. > Wan uilding to fit in but be distinctive for this era. > T e co/ors: white, warm champagne, and wooden. > feet floor-to-f/oor, 45-foot height total. 9-foot ceiling height for ices, not excessive. There were be expensive, would Canepa, NelsonlNygaard, represented the parking and tr�portation for the application. Commissioner questons/comments: City of Burlingame �r Page 14 Printed on 11/9/2015 � ►-, =�'' . rlli��. �11 ��`''.�'�nill 11�i�', ��`'".�/ ��!�'^� � ' • . 1��d��• Home Design & Engineering November 17, 2015 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Rd Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 2718 Easton Dr. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Planning Commissioner: We have made the following changes per your design review study comments: 1. The front entry walkway has been shafted to the right in order to save tree #3, 7& 8. 2. A balcony has been added at the front elevation, off dining room. 3. A new pedestrian walkway has been added, coming off Alvarado. Thank you for your time in reviewing this project and environmental document. Sincerely, %�C�r�re� �� Electronic signature 55 West 43rd Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Phone: (650)345-9286 Fax: (650�345-9287 i� ar•.►.- BUR4i�� _ '_�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • SO1 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: � Design Review ❑ Conditional Use Permit � Variance ❑ Parcel #: 027-194-100 ❑ Special Permit ❑ Other: PROJECT ADDRESS:27� H EASTON DRIVE O Please indicate the contact person for this project APPLICANT project contact person ❑/ PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents Q' OK to send electronic copies of documents G� ►vame: CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES Name: HENRY & RUI CHEN Address: 55 W. 43RD AVE. city�state�zip: SAN MATEO, CA 94403 Phone: 650-345-9286 x104 Fax: 650-345-9287 E-ma��: James@chudesign.com ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Pro]ectcontact person ❑/ OK to send electronic copies of documents C� Name: JAMES CHU Address: 55 W. 43RD AVE. city�state�zip: SAN MATEO, CA 94403 Phone: 650-345-9286 x104 Fax: 650-345-9287 E-ma�i: James@chudesign.com Address: 2718 EASTON DRIVE city�state�zip: BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Phone: Fax: E-mail: �(�l"eh��q�l� . �rn �CEIVED /�PR 2 9 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME ^;,�;- �';-ANr�iNG i3'V * Burlingame Business License #: �LSP�' AFFADAVIT/SIGNATU RE: I best of my knowledge and bel Applicant's signature: I am aware of the proposed Commission. Property owner's signature: Date submitted: �+r Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. ❑ Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. S:�Handouts�PC Application 2008-B.handout ify under penalty of perjury that the information given h �--� .. _.. _ _ �" I , in is true and correct to the z�/f � the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE, TEARDOWN OF EXISTING RESIDENCE � . ,�i - . ..t=. ,", �•. . ' , . . . , � . , �� , . ,, _ . . • • � � , _ •, .� } • M i, ♦ q S •� , � , y. • � . � • , -� , t ' . ' � ' . .. • . . , i , • . . '"J! . . , , _ � t . , ' • City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin�ame.or� a� CITY � � � BURLINGAME I I i 4oso CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dorninant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. The proposed two car attached garage is located at the same location as existing, and can only be access from the rear of the property, off Alvarado Ave. Due to the slope of the existing, it will be impossible build a detached garage with driveway access from Easton Dr. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facarle, exterior finish materials and elevutions of the proposed new structure or addition aNe consistent with tlze existrng structure, street and neighborhood. The proposed two car attached garage will have same exterior finishes which match the new proposed residence. And because it's the same location as existing, we believed it should blend in well without changing the character of the neighborhood �3 How will the p�oposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The proposed single-family residence is consistent with City Design Review Guidelines, and it complies with all zoning requirements, except for special permit for attached garage. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located wzthin t/ze footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's Yeforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the renzoval of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. New entry waikway with landscaping for entire lot is proposed. The removal of existing pines are needed to accommodate a new entry stairs from Easton Dr to the main sPECPExM.FxM entrance of the proposed home. �� BURl.thfGAME � CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type orwrite neatly in ink. Referto the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to oiher properties in this area. There are many exceptional conditions existed on this property. The existing home is setback 38 feet from the street, and the main finished floor is almost 30 feet above the to of the curb (sidewalk) on Easton Dr. There's no direct access from the street to the residence, with garage access off from Alvarado Ave. All the above do not apply to other properties in Easton Addition neighborhood. b. Explain whythe variancerequestisnecessaryforthe preservation and enjoymentofa substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resulf from the denial of the application, Without the approval for overall height variance, it will be impossible to build a garage strucfiure, and a residence without major grading, tree removal which will caused unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or fo public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, The variance requested will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, since the issue of building height is an existing condition. d, How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods that also have attached two-car�garage at the rear of the property. Since the proposed it set back away from the street, it will minimize the visual impact with new entry walkway and landscaping. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org Handouts\Variance Application.2008 Kielty Arborist Services LLC Certified Arborist WE#0476A P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650- 515-9783 February, 18, 201 S Chu Design Associates Attn: Mr. James Chu 55 West 43rd Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Site: 2718 Easton, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Chu, As requested on R�ednesday, January 28, 2015, I visited the a6ove site for the purpose of inspec#ing and commenting on the trees. New construction is being planned for this site and your concem as to the fiiture health and safety of the trees has prompted this visit. Met6od: The tot was inspected from the ground. The trees were iocated on a not to scale map provided by me. Fach tree was assigned an identification number; this munber was inscribed on a metal foil tag and n�ailed to the tree at eye level. Tbe trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at bmast height). A condition rating of 1-100 was assigned to each tree representing form and vitality using the fallowing scale: 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - lOQ Excellent The height of each tree was estimated and the spread was gaced off. The location of each tree was described. �bservateons for each tree wiil be included. 2718 Easton/ 2/15/15 ��) Survey: Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SP Comments 1 Monterey cypress 15.9 44 35/35 Paor vigor, poor fortn, poor location, (Cupressus macrocarpa) leans south, located above steps. 2 Monterey cypress 23.1 55 45/40 Fair vigor, fair form, heavy to south (Cupressus macrocarpa) over sidewalk. � 4 5 Deodar cedar 13.3 55 (Cedrus deodara) Coast live oak I6.1, 16.7 50 {Quercus agrifotia) Monterey pinc 24.7 55 (Pinus radiata) 6 Monterey cypress 32.9 55 (Cupressus macrocarpa) 7 Monterey pine 18.9 55 (Pirrus radiata) 8 Monterey pine 26.2 55 (Pinus radiata) � 14 11 50/25 Fair vigor, poor-fair forno, suppressed, tall for DBH 40/40 Fair vigor, poor-fair forni, codominant at 1 foot, heavy over street, sycamore borer, decay at base. SQ/4U Fair vigor, fair form, heavy to the sauth. 50/50 Fair vigor, fair form, heavy to north over neighbors. 50/40 Fair vigor, poor-fair farm, suppressed by #8 and #9. 55/40 Fair vigor, poor-fair form, suppressed by #9 and #7, ieans south. 55/35 Fair vigor, poor-fair form, suppressed by #8 and #7. 30l15 Good vigor, fair form, suppressed. 70/40 Fair viger, fair form, topped in past. 12 13 Monterey pine 24.2 55 (Pirrus radiata) Redwood 11.6 55 (Sequoia sempervirens) Redwood 48est 65 (Sequoia sempervirens) Redwood 15.6, 6.9 50 (Sequoia sempervirerisJ Redwood 8.9 50 (Sequoia sempervirens) 30/25 Goad vigor, fair form, topped for line clearance. 25/10 Good vigor, poor-fair form, topped for line clearance. 2718 Easton/ 2/15/15 14 Black acacia 14.2 50 (Acacia melanoxylon) 15 Redwood 34.3 50 (Sequoia sempervirerts) 16 Pittosponun 12,1 45 (Pittosporum undulatum) 17 Pittosporum I2.8 50 (Pittosporum urrdulatum) i3) 30/3Q Good vigar, poor form, topped for line clearance. 25/35 Good vigor, poor form, topped for line ciearance. 30/15 Fair vigar, poor form, topped in past at 4 feet, water sprouts fram that point. 30/15 Fair vigor, poor-fair form topped. Summaiy: The trees an site aze� a mix of native and imported species. The only native tree is the coast live oak. The remaining trees aze imported. Monterey pines #7,#8,#9 were aJl planted to close togefiher and are suppressing each other. Monterey pines all over the bay azea have been rapidly declining because of the drought, pine pitch canker and bark beetles for these reasons a removal of the Monterey pines on site is an option: Also the black acacia tree is a very invasive and messy tree and should also be considered for removal. The trees that were topped for line clearance are going to need maintenance because of the type of pnzning received. Impact to the trees on site wil! be minimal with most of the trees remaining, the following tree protectian pian will help to minimize impacts to the irees. Tree Protection Plan: Tree protection zones should be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for pratection zones shouid be 6 foot tail mctal chain link supported by metal poles pounded into the ground. The location for protective fencing should be as close to the dripline as possible, sdll aliowing room far construction to safely continue. Entire sections of the property catl be fenced off groviding maximum protection to groups of trees. No equipment or materials should be stared or cleaned inside protection zones. Any roots to be cut should be manitored and docwnented. Large roots or large masses of roots to be cut should be inspected by the site arborist. The site arborist may recommend irrigation or fertilizing at that time. Ctet all roots clean with a saw or loppers. Roats to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist. 271$ Easton/ 2/15/15 (4) Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason, should be hand dug when beneath the dripline of desired trees. Hand digging and carefut ptacement of pipes below or beside protec#ed roots will dramatically reduce root lass, thus reducing trauma to desired trees. Trenches should be back filled as soon as possible using native materials and compacted to near originat levels. Trenches to be teft open with exposed roots shall be covered with burlap and kept moist Plywood laid over the trench will help to protect roots below. Normal irrigation shouJd be maintained throughout the entire length of the project. All of the protected imported trees will need regular warm season imgation. Trrigation should consist of surface flooding, with enough water to wet the entire root zone. This type of irrigation should be carried out two times per month during the warm dry season. Irrigation prior to the start of construction wiil improve the trees' vigor and will reduce trauma frum root loss. The spreading of 3 to 5 inches of wood chips will help the soil to retain moistare and wilt improve the soil structure. The installatian of chips will atso hetp ta reduce compaction of the root zones and should be spread were compaction is expected to be heavy. The oak should need no irrigation unless their raot zone is traumatized. This information should be kept on site at all times. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sflund azboricultural principles and practices. Sincei " Kevin Certif . �',. . ,• . �pC�Y ; ��:� . � . z � . � Na WE-0476A m 1� `* * ��TlF1� R�� ..� 3` , 0 � .� v � l�aFf� F. a _,�� F � .� ;�� I a� ��R'� �r�� R q� Q 3�! � � .� �,4g '63�� F" � �" � � . �f�� Q � �i $�` � y� I E��$ �� a%�,-�� , ��. � � � ��, �� 3�� $� a� � � ��t!s�� l� E��Gfi �R31��P�l�:EIi�F �d ea e5 g�(6�°S --- - � �`'�. -�.r- . -"6� ��. ��f ��i� aF. . �•� � + ��,' y . ._ . . f 9d m� �� . a ��Y«�s.��a�s�;s��ata�;� �Fa�� - � -�� , i �� ' t � � ! � 1 _ _- - --I � � _� — E t � � �� — i J , � ' ' ~ ` � �- �ix�s�� , �� x a ` ��i$Fc� � 1 � � �� _ . _ '�� ` �� ~ a .— � 1 O -� 1 , , � �� ' i ' — � i { � � f' { _�� v�. � �r~ � A � —'�_ J � 6 u o il tr"" rcr ►'tS� _ „ t �f � � - � ! E� � o m , _ —`�''i __ �� - , � 00 1� J " —. � .�"' 1 � � • i � i' , _ �--� � � a � �� . i �� a ;� � � �r , � �„ � � i 1�+ �� _ � �.� � � �� - - ' ,d m � .a � ■ � 'l I O�I J� ' ' iT �� , � � B ��'�f �~ D ' ., 1� s: � ,� �,,�.,, , ,� t �. � _M � � T , i � ,� y1 �e 6 . � � � `' Y ��--� --- �1� o• �� • F�b � 3 L �`-�-. ��+ f},�`��a t� � If z '► . �N' •'.�� t Rg 0 1ti �y � � p � �f�- �I��r � ` � 4� � ~� , L � ' i$1 � � � *,� i•� q � 4�� A `` a� J'! ��`/ � o�S � a � ' (�.,. I� i. o �� 6 % •� 1' �A � V �,') n( v l � 1 � ! � �2� " �; � }t� : � � �� y� � � � � �s, _-R . �t � '__ � . +, f � : � e ' R, ,�,�'", e � �, �?, ' d1a s; ��i �:.- -- ,r4, Q".:ti:�a : Q a ; a s1:� ` ,�� 8 * -�� .,�� x a a .� � ! x +; � --F. � �Q�°'�_ � t 1111 < � � � a � � < _ �� i � � ot sx J t � xj ` 'y ` ./' .,"i` � t `" °'F� � j "-'l� �� `� �� '�� .` �,J� �y � : �9�� I A� �.S � �.----�----"_' _",i--r--- � $�� ; ---� �1— �� — �^ J �so �,`R. � j1� �Y� A -� aQ � � � f � $ �� y¢ � � :� � i �� ' � I �1 I I � s' � � ' I I I ! � � E I 6 � � � � �� 2%1$ 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 Specia� 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 alternative 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 '� ._. - 3 - r-.."`� � �; � . - ._,� . •+� - . �; , _ . -a_ � - ��= ` � F � P �� ' . � � �, �� ;r � _ �L . � = 4 7�� ' _ . va,�� Y �t � - ; -e �'a � . . ��'` .. ,_ �� ` , - �._ _7_ Q� 1i� � t� ,_� F .. �� 7�Y��`. h = . s' � . � �Q , ' � � i� I�F� j / j � , a 4 4 s' � � �` , 1��7 ' . �� '� �, . 4� �S • � � O� -� � . � ":'i �J - . y � :� f'..1 -/ �` . _ '-'�'� i '�V� 5 �� ..:1. . �l+"� j' � � - {%i i, �,�o� �' � ♦ p� �� ' %� � } v�,r' : � � ��20 � '� - `; t. . . . � ��i�« 4 ��. � ' � - �j J, s- - � _ � "�*4 � - a~y F ��l � �� ` � � I � F � �`?7 �i�; � � Y T �' �` r r 6 # � �; + �,�', � � � �^O� � t � r �� _ '_. - J � � �. g't� �r `'� � t� ' '� � �a�2 �+ ` � � t� � � '�� `� �' � � ��' 8 - ^�. - `Ey ' �.��'^ � � � � �`< �`?i � "'� O = - L � r . � ' -L �� ' �, •'� �� Y � �61`� a i_� 73 .`� � � � � _ � �5�� 5 ` , ^ 8p - s ' .. a ' "'� + • + ��' �i . fi ��'j,��6 a� � : v = � �� ;� ` � c` � � � : � /� , Y / l= _ f �Tc�� i _ r_ ze,e ', � � � ' �# �' � � r: t�""�-p, r{ ��" ' �` _ � . � �� ;, �;,, .� '��'2 ��08: 3 �"' � ` o� � _ '' �� , ,3 � � ° - '� _ ' + , `j'1 �'�``� � � � �� ,� � ��. -' �° µ �:�t �_. {c� +.4 � .,'Y �p :i � . �' # _ � _ �. � ,` �1 � �. � �0� � - � � � '�, , s '�,�: , `b � �r _ :� =�5 �� ! ♦ p� . F } - '� ,, a �,, �� .; - � �r< � ��. y �` � , � �" � _'. �. " �•,., �,., � �� O � �� ;4 84 . �. •� �`�� ` _ � . � �T ; } _ � � ,•� 'L� �•�� - `' � ; J'�� , ., �� O � G� ,��1:,_ '`� ,` '�.^ � j � �:, �; �� _ : - � 1� 1 � - E� �� L�� - - � : �- = - `��` . � _ -. H� � - � � =�: . � -- f-�- , � :t ��- 4 .� �;; � :*� � _ . �` �- .` ' �t '� - �� { sz � � s ...✓ _ rL�� ;' "'�c+�� ! ... 3 r �� _ - ` r=� _ �'� „ � , : , : s �_ ., ;` � _ _ , a , � . . , -� . « " �� ` � �"' ` . , € . � . ,� - �,. �- --- � ��r - _ � � O� .: � ' � � - - -- - � �' N �,. s� � � _ '`s �` _ ��`� - ` 2813 � 1 _' ' , s' ,, � � � � } ' � {. � �y � �f' - E f " - -s ta� , . - � 03 i ' � - �'` � �. , - - `� �'. � - � E _ _ a= - r'$ . -- ..-4 � J� � � � , f . 4 =� .. � 'C+S. ,.' � . �,.z. _ .._ � _.� _ :' i = � �, , :. o�-' [� hhi((fiCG7loy'oY1 �q� 1 (�]p�`� . „�- .. '�i " ` r�d'C�i@[�5 Ct�'s 1��. �s �. . . 9 - ,�,e �`nt, pC��°?, < _ . .. . �. . � .- -raavAaa�s:.:;a, mu,!IT._i r/Sllca`no- _ -�a_ _...-.-...�,..wti,.r � - Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive t:` � S �� '. i Y - W n�ry � .. � x ` p> n �30 ^ Z� . =.j .: Q �_ � Q� ='�m��z- � i � �� 2 - ° i}' � �"� z�'��k �'uA-�a� ��t i �af 4 9 � �t; 3.. �yi� � .. o��z§��'��f3? ➢�, a ; i ' �' ` £ s� , ,��-� � � ��a m} � ";� � ;�, � 3_ ..:;.:� � �._. ., ,.. i�_, _.:�_i- ..._ .i g , �.-� � C� ` <�, a " x ' � � q� 1 . 6] O"� +1 : m S �. . � -t_' 7'�. 4 ....._.. _.. ,..__.'. .. ... � s3 .'' � . ~ � 3� � y�} I . S'.i � ' _I '' " � �;*i2�� ,j , � 's"" � ^I � � - _ � - I.x� �- ~ �, ; � w _ .� ��C 'F, , , .. � ' � � .• - . _ ! � _,�,,. - � �, 1 _ ' _ ". �' 1`1� u J C I � - � �EY � i �• , .. � y , o ..�.� X � _ " (� ' � ' , ia . ' , y _ . � �� , . _�. r � ; ��.. . � . i ;'� ' f � �°` +i s , - s� ; � :� � � f �,+ ''�+\ � � � ��7 r " .i� .�3 � -'.. i1 w .� ` r. ��... � ( �. / ��i. � �� S ➢ ,� ] ` " 1 a � � ' � a :(. _ � 3 ; � � ..l` `� eM� ss � y i�fl u �" u_j�6 . 4 � � i" f '�s � 3 � -3+L ) � ? z I jj' � � q3 � Z � _ b �.,\ !�� $ �1 y� � � �I' 1 b t ,/� l� � - F�� 1= 14 �.� '�x �.��' tt � :�'� 2 '$ � 'le 1. _i 3 4II� ..P,�� -iJ) k �i F � '} ` =� 't! - _ £ �, �' � ; ' � � �I; � ti_ s 5.`.y y.. a�. i� �� r�r i ��p`% 3 / �. � �, $ �\ � n 5 6�\�� '� 3 �$� 'i f Q/ � 4�� _��/ �.� � �z �.i "I J � h 't I` %� � i� \\ ,�l' (� � �C f �� 1 r1i j� � y t_' � , 1�� , I \ � �\ �H _ *�_ J, .1 r�. i1 1 � �� - ; +' aa��.;�> I �? � � i � � ,�, �.-�+ # 3 � �,.1 I ,�, ,.., l. �, ._ r r{ 3I'•. l 4 G + � _ r �' g� .._ a�n �}c i `:•---�:l:J.,�.e � � \/ 1� i ,�i YZS 3 ..�� I� � f . ' /' 1S'L� -- /4q 'a . ' 9 ` � � ,- ��. u�// y ^ �^ 1 3{i �'�\ i � / : _ _ �.'_r - `-1 �, . 1 ;;i� . - ��.� � e � r _ . o _ z a - 8 r . " - � _ , kL�� -� 1 � e 1 i �: ... ..__ . .. - _ � `t�� $ �a : '� � O : _- - � > - ir, � . F - � R � - r#�' o.�--� � �� .�€S� ' ._ , � -' a � �',�k � . , - Q z � .�;Vq; , a a ' . e�*�?� � ;, `P� <- �� ;� �;:- g;� �iia;si ��: �� j. . ; I I i ` I `� Y �3 I C; „ ;� �: � t � � : � ) � � � I ); ; 3� I x ? 9 �I 7, ` k i I Q� � i ��,�` � ; :,�'�yF 4 i i � � � 4f' I I � i � i �' . I � 05 I I i I I 1 ' , I _ 'n i I } � � ��y � �' 3 ai a l ;�� a � I, i� i. i 1� Irr � I --- z 0 - � a � i � :I `�'y £ •�� I , �; ' �� / , i i �: a- i �' E a : i '�i Figure 2 — Site Survey 0 Initiai Study Environmental Impacts 2718 Easton Drive Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ 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. � ��n��l� Signature William Meeker Printed Name October 21, 2015 Date Citv of Burlingame For Initial Study Summary of Mitigation Measures 2718 Easton Drive Environmental Factor Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure la: 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. Aesthetics 2718 Easton Drive 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. ,4ir 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. � 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 Civality 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 0 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 SourcesJ: 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 Potentia/ly with Less Than Significant Mitigation Signifitant lmpact Incorporation Impoct ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 General P/an. 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 Highways 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 eurlingame General P/an. 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 ib 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, Municipa/ Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2015 edition. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 — Electrica/ Code, Burlingame, California, 2010 edition. 13 Initial5tudy Project plans date stamped August 7, 2015. Site Visit, August and September, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 2718 Easton Drive 14 Initiai Study Less Thon Significant or Significont Potential/y with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: lmpatt Incorporation Impact No lmpact 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-agricuitural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Invoive other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � 2718 Easton Drive 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 P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Project plans date stamped August 7, 2015. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2015 edition. This space intentionally left blank. 15 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive Less Than Significant or Significant Potentia/ly with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significont Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact /ncorparation Impatt 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) Confiict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The proposed application is for 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 [CCR]). 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 General 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 (ond Supporting Informotion SourcesJ: 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the projed: Less Than Significant or Signi/itant Potential/y with Significant Mitigation Impact /ncorporation 2718 Easton Drive Less Than Significant lmpacf No Impatt a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or � through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian � habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Garne 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 su6stantially with the movement of any � native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ U n � � � ❑ � 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 Initiai 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 Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 —Zoning, Burlingame, California Map of Areas of Special eiological 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 historicai 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 Impoct ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2718 Easton Drive No Impact � � � � 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 formations). 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 Genera/ 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 potentialiy 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 Potentiol/y Significant Impact � Less Than Significant with Mitigation lncorporotion n ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ ❑ Less Thon Significant Impact _� No Impact •� � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �'��I 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, potentiaily 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 General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps, http://�is.aba�.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibility/, 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 lssues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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 Significant Potentially with Less Than Signifitant Mitigation Significont 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 dweliing units for any individual single family residential project. The proposed project would be comprised of one unit (replacing an existing single family dweiling). 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 2012j. 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. 26 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 /eft 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 orthe 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 wiidlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion Less Than Significant or Significant Potentia/ly with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impoct ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2718 Easton Drive No Impoct � � � � � � � � 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, Tit/e 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. 29 Initial Study Significant or Potentially Signifitant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 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 ot 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, inciuding 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 Less Than Signifitant with Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2718 Easton Drive No Impact � � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � 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, Municipal 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 intentionally left blank. 32 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 2718 Easton Drive Less Than Significont or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Signifitant Impact Incorporotion Impatt No Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or � regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation � plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion ❑ ❑ � The 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 Burlingame 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 oi Significant Potentially with Cess Than Signifitant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation Impatt No Impacf 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 locai general plan, specific pian 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 Genera/ 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 leveis 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 Signifitont or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Intorporation Impact ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ n � ❑ ❑ 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, Title 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 SourcesJ: 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing eisewhere? Discussion Less Than Significonf or Significant Potentiol/y with Less Than Signifitant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2718 Easton Drive No lmpact � � � 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 Genera/ 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 (ond Supportinq 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? Signifitant or Potential/y Significant Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Thon Significant with Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impatt �1� /1 ��i /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 �: Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive replace an existing single family dwelling and would not result in any appreciable increase to the number of potentiai 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.burlingame.or�, accessed October 2015 This space intentionally left blank. 39 Initial Study 2718 Easton Drive Less Thon Significant or Significant PotentiaUy with Less Than Significant Mitigatian Significant /ssues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation lmpact No Impact 15. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ � neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ❑ � require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The 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 Significant or Potentia/ly Significant Issues (and Supporting Informofion SourcesJ: Impact 16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in � relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individualiy or cumulatively, a level of seroice standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact i1 ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � 2718 Easton Drive 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 Genera/ Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 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 land Supportinq Informotion Sourtes): 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 federai, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion Significant or Less Than Pofentially Signifitont with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2718 Easton Drive Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �I ►� 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�ysanmateocountv.com , site accessed October 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 44 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting lnformation SourcesJ: 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the qualiry 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 animai community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? ("Cumulative considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion Significant or Less Than Potentially Significont with Significant Mitigation Impact Inco�poration ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � 2718 Easton Drive Less Than Significant Impatt No Impact ❑ � ❑ � ❑ ❑ 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 PrQject Comments Date: To: From: August 10, 2014 � Engineering Division (sso) �s-�23o � Building Division (s5o) sss-�2sv X Parks Division (650} 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650} 558-72U4 Planning Staif Subject: Request for De�ign F�eview, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope and Attached Garage and Variance for Height for a new two-story dwelling 2718 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-194 100 Staff Review: August 10, 2Q15 1. Protected Tree Removai Permit required for proposed trees 48n in circumference or larger tt�at are indicated on plan for removal. (trees 7,8,9 and possibly 3) 2. Irrigation drip lines do not cover a!I proposed plant material, provide adequate coverage, or is divide up by hydrozanes_ This needs to be resolved for building permit. Reviewed by: BD Date: 8/12/15 Project Comments Date: To: From: May 4, 2015 0 Engineering Division (650) 55�7230 0 Building Division (65D) 558-7260 X Parks Division (650) 558-73�4 � Fire Division (650) 558-760Q 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning StafF Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope and Attached Garage and Variance for Height for a new two-story dwelling at 2718 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027- 194-100 Staff Review: May 4, 2015 �� Landscape plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape RegulationsA (attached). Irrigation Plan required for Building permit. Audit due for Final. 2. If construction is within drip line of existing trees, a Tree Protection Plan must be in place to protect trees during all phases of construction. � No e�dsting tree over 48 inches in circumference at 54 inches form base of tree may be removed without a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Division. (55&-7330) � Completed landscape must include 4 landscape trees (non-fruit bearing} existing or new, in addition to all replacement trees on Protected Tree Removal Permit. Reviewed by: BQ Date: 5/7/15 Qt1TDC}QR WATER USE EFFIGIEN�Y CHECKLIST #: �a. .�: s, t �� .yt �� . '_ _ r ��+lra��`° �t'S z�' *..r�.. *� � '�5<x ,", � � ,�"5 ,�", 3�'r�"i�y ��e i.s t�,• r,�° 0 c 4 p.f• . j�o ,D J .�b.� 0 4 �' �m..• ��.��: ��}e $v 1?�� ✓ ,f.^,��x �' �`.�� .4 � ti •�y� A��-��`-��f; •��•� �. .3 ;�,. .�"ai+ ��' F 8*' �., .d.v,._ .. 1�cert'rfy that e subj�ct roject eets the specified re�uirements of the Water Conservatian in Landscaping Ordinance. , _ Auqust 4, 2015 Sign ure Date •� Singfe Family �1 Muiti-Famiiy G Cvmmercia( �1 Instituti�aal C.1 irrigation only � industriai L2 OthPr: a��t�Ca�,c Na�,e {�r,�t): Rui CheN BruCe Ci�an coneaGt ��,one �r: 650-346-7645 Pro;ectsite address: 27� H Er�S�0i1 Dt'IV@ Agency Review _ _ __ Fraject Area (sq.f�, or acrej: $, 096 sf � Q� tlnits: � #t af Meters: � (P�ssj (Failj �.,,: � �:.�: r:� Totai l.andscape Area {sq.fC.j: ❑ Tier 1 {1000 - 250(3 sf} C] . p; ,. ;': , . , ,- � ,:.:.:,; �1 Tier 2 { > 25aG sf} ' : _ _ - '° .." 7urt Irri�ated Area {sq.ft.�: � u 0 ;,,., , . Nan-Turf frrigated Area {sq.ft.); 29 � 6 gf ,�' � , • � ,_ , _ Special Landscape Area {SLAj (sq.ft.J: Q C2 (� . , . . vUati�r �eature Surfac� Area (sq.fC.}: Q .a< A. �. ;� � � .�,, - � � .;�. , ,. .., , , , . , . .. ..• :� �,�::,•.• . 3urf Less than 25% crf the landscape ar�a is �Yes _ NCl O tvrf 0 Nca, See tNater 8udget ....�,._ ..�..m......�,.. _�...�,.�.._. _ ltil tur# �reas are 5 8 f�et vr�de Cl Yes ��0 ��J C"� � � ,�..__ �1II turf is pl�nted on slapes �?5°l0 � Yes _ ,�i �.1 Non-'turf :�t ��asg Sfl% c�f non-Curf area is native Y�s f�' L.1 car lovr water use pfants C:1 Na, Se� Wat�r 6udg�t Hydroxones PEants are grouped by Hycirozones C�(Yes ,0 !:1 Muich At ieast 2-incf�es of rti+alch on ex�osed Y�s 0 sosl surfates 1Pi1�8L1Cti1 Sy5tElYI EfflGi�t1CY 7U% �"I"o ��.Oq% CTo far SLAsj Cl Yes j�j//"� �l C:i _....�..,.�......_..._....__.....�.. _�._...,.m....._ ._ .,__�_....___._......, _..,_._�...... �_�.._. ........_.... ..............�...._.._.M.._,...._____� �fo overspray or runo%f �Yes t:� C3 Errigatian Systern ��si�n System eFficiency> 70°l� � Y�s �! Cl Aucomatic, s�If-adjustin� irr3gatior� �..1 i�o, not reqr�rred farTier �.� ��. m�f 0� contrallers G�Yes � _ __..�._ _..� m.�...._ ._� Moi�ture sensar/r�in sensor shutafis � Yes � �1 Ct No s�rayheads 'rn � �-ft <A✓ide are� _____ � Y�s .____.._.�_..�..._..._ �" � trrigation Time "` SystQrn only operates betwe�r� 8 PM ,t� Yes �1 t;.l and �0 AM Metering Separa�e irrigaCiQn m�t�r �No, noc reqaired b�cause <5,0�0 sq.ft, � ❑ C] 1'es Swi►ncning Poois / Spas Caver hi�hly recc�mmended U Y�s �T Q t�Na, nat rec�uired WaEer FeaYures R�circu[atin� � Yes D ia --__.�_,_..� _._ ___�_..__.�.�.....�.�_. —_.__.,�. � .....:......._.__.....,..�........_..� ..�...�. . Less chan 10% o� landscape area C3 Yes C1 Ca iTocurnentation Checklist �Yes t.� _ _._._____ �..._._____ �--- -- --- _.... __ �., � Landscape and Erri�ation [7esign Plan t,�{�repared b}� applicant C] t:l (�repared by professio�al ._._.__�_��._..__,___...__..�.�..._.._._�...___�....__. ..__.�..__-__.._......,.�,�...._..,...�...... ...... � ....._.. _� 1tJater E3udg�t {optian��lj i:.l t'rr�parecl by applicank f.,l C.� Cl Prepared by prof�ssit�nai Audit PosY-i�tstallation audEt eompieter� U Complefied by applic�nt � t� � �CompteYed by professional ,_LL___ -____�. �_._,W _....._....;,�.,�._,_.. , Project Comments Date: August 10, 2014 To: X Engineering Division 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7600 0 Building Division � Stormwater Division (650) 558-7260 (650) 342-3727 0 Parks Division � City Attorney (650) 558-7334 (650) 558-7204 From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope and Attached Garage and Variance for Height for a new two-story dwelling 2718 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-194- 100 Staff Review: August 10, 2015 1. On the site plan, please remove the gate that is in the right-of-way on Easton Drive. The walkway to the steps must be flush to the existing ground level that is within the public right-of-way. Reviewed by: M. Quan Date: 8/24/15 Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: May 4, 2015 X Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � Parks Division � City Attorney (650) 558-7334 (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Design Review, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope and Attached Garage and Variance for Height for a new finro-story dwelling at 2718 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027- 194-100 May 4, 2015 . Please provide a site plan of what is existing (and label all landscape) 2. Please show all existing and proposed relocation of utilities (PG&E, water, ewer, sewer lateral) 3. ow will the hillside be stabilized once the retaining walls are removed? What will be replaced? � There are portion of the retaining wall that span across the property line. How will this development affect the adjacent lot? 5 Where will the roof downspouts be directed to and dispersed on-site. . How will the proposed rear staircase integrate with the existing stone footing and wrought iron fence? 7. All Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 8. A survey by a licensed surveyor or engineer is required. The survey shall show how the property lines were determined and that the property corners were set with surveyors license numbers on durable monuments. This survey shall be attached to the construction plans. All corners need to be maintained or reinstalled before the building final. All property corners shall be maintained during construction or reestablished at the end of the project. 9. Replace all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site, (2) plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and install a new 4" lateral, (3) all water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be installed per city standard procedures and specification. Reviewed by: M. Quan Date: 5/5/15 Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: May 4, 2015 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 X Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Design Review, Special Permit for Declining Envetope and Attached Garage and Variance for Height for two-story dwelling at 2718 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 194-100 May 4, 2015 Height a new 027- Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably, on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger), plan sheet. BMPs noted included as proposed project plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http �//www.flowstobay. org/Construction Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects utilizing architectural copper. Please read attachment "Requirements for architectural Copper." A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay. org/files/newdevelopment/flyersfactsheets/Arch itecturalcopper BMPs.pdf Please contact Kiley Kinnon, NPDES Stormwater Coordinator, for assistance at (650) 342-3727. Reviewed by: KJK Date: 05/04/15 .�'�rr�.,,� St.n NA;El; i..,;i:!':Y'iIiDE �i�t�C PO�ilitiQCl �reVertriar� Prc�grarn Llean Wate+, NoatU.y Cmt++�uei:y. Requirements for Architectural Copper Protect water quality during installation, cleaning, treating, and washing! Copper from Buildings May Harm Aquatic Life Copper can harm aquatic life in San Francisco Bay. Water that comes into contact with architectural copper may contribute to impacts, especially during installation, cleaning, treating, or washing. Patination solutions that are used to obtain the desired shade of green or brown typically contain acids. After treatment, when the copper is rinsed to remove these acids, the rinse water is a source of pollutants. Municipalities prohibit discharges to the storm drain of water used in the installation, cleaning, treating and washing of architectural copper. ��-�;; : � � r � Use Best Management Practices (BMPs) The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be implemented to prevent prohibited discharges to storm drains. During Installation If possible, purchase copper materials that have been pre-patinated at the factory. If patination is done on-site, implement one or more of the following BMPs: o Discharge the rinse water to landscaping. Ensure that the rinse water does not flow to the street or storm drain. Block off storm drain inlet if needed. o Collect rinse water in a tank and pump to the sanitary sewer. Contact your local sanitary sewer agency before discharging to the sanitary sewer. o Collect the rinse water in a tank and haul off-site for proper disposal. • Consider coating the copper materials with an impervious coating that prevents further corrosion and runoff. This will also maintain the desired color for a longer time, requiring less maintenance. During Maintenance Implement the following BMPs during routine maintenance activities, such as power washing the roof, re-patination or re-application of impervious coating: • Block storm drain inlets as needed to prevent runoff from entering storm drains. • Discharge the wash water to landscaping or to the sanitary sewer (with permission from the local sanitary sewer agency). If this is not an option, haul the wash water off-site for proper disposal. Protect the Bay/Ocean and yourself! If you are responsible for a discharge to the storm drain of non- stormwater generated by installing, cleaning, treating or washing copper architectural features, you are in violation of the municipal stormwater ordinance and may be subject to a fine. �'��Q�� ? � �� 's$� n B ' ? �� :�� «-,��-�� . ;.�-t� '"_.�--�. � � F�; �ti= �� „� � _��` �;: Photo credit: Don Edwards National Wildlife Sanctuary Contact Information The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program lists municipal stormwater contacts at www.flowstobay.orq (click on "Business", then "New DevelopmenY', then "local permitting agency"). FINAL February 29, 2012 Building with copper flashing, gutter and drainpipe. Storm drain inlet is blocked to prevent prohibited discharge. The water must be pumped and disposed of properly. Cx�y of Burli�ga�me - Parks Dxvisxon. � �,T� �. . . o,� �� _�� .'� f.��'A iia-„�:ai s�osi r,,�c 9umm�ro 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingatne, C;p,, 94010 phone: (650) 558-7334 • fax: (650) 343-8429 �`�s„s� �c,�,y��. � �� :;; � '��•�,�� \,-` � � .. d' ` ,Z:l � �� e¢ �QGrr1�L�*;�°� WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSC.APE ORDIN.ANCE 1.8.1'7.060 Landscape Pz•ojec� A.pplication A. The eXements of a landscape must be designed to achieve water ef�ciency and wz1l comply with the criteria described in the attached Ordinance. In completing the Landscape Projeci Applicaiion, project applicants nnay choose one oftwo opiions below to deznonstrate that ihe. landscape meets the Ordinance's water e£f�ciency goals. Regardless of which option is selecied, ihe applicant must complefe and comply with all other elements of the Ordinance. The options include: 1. Planting Restrictions option: a. The iurf area may not be more than 25% of fihe landscape area. b. Ai leasi 80% of the plants in non-ttui landscape azeas shall be naiive plants, low watex uszng plants, or no-water using plants. 2. Water Budget Calculations option. (Section 18.70.080) B. The Landscape Project Applicaiion shall zn.clude the following elements: 1.. Project In%rmation 2. Oufdoor Water Use Eff'�ciency Checklist (attached) 3. Water�Budget Calculaiions. (if applicant chooses #2 above) 4. Landscape and Irrigaiion System Design Plans. (Seciion 18.17.090) 5. Landscape Audii Report. (attached) Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: May 4, 2015 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Design Review, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope and Attached Garage and Variance for Height for a new two-story dwelling at 2718 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027- 194-100 May 4, 2015 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, and 2013 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1889. Note: If the Planning Commission has not approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2013 then this project must comply with the 2013 California Building Codes. 2) Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2013 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/ for publications and details. 3) Provide two completed copies of the attached Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. 4) Place the following information on the first page of the plans: "Construction Hours" Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m. Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.) Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non-City Holidays befinreen 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Note: Construction hours for work in the public right of way must now be included on the plans. 5) On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work. 6) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 7) Provide a fully dimensioned site plan which shows the true property boundaries, the location of all structures on the property, existing driveways, and on-site parking. 8) Note: Any revisions to the plans approved by the Building Division must be submitted to, and approved by, the Building Division prior to the implementation of any work not specifically shown on the plans. Significant delays can occur if changes made in the field, without City approval, necessitate further review by City departments or the Planning Commission. Inspections cannot be scheduled and will not be performed for work that is not shown on the Approved plans. 9) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been finaled. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. 10)Provide a complete demolition plan that includes a legend and indicates existing walls and features to remain, existing walls and features to be demolished, and new walls and features. NOTE: A condition of this project approval is that the Demolition Permit will not be issued and, and no work can begin (including the removal of a� building components), until a Building Permit has been issued for the project. The property owner is responsible for assuring that no work is authorized or performed. 11)When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 12)Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 13)Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 14)Obtain a survey of the property lines. 15)Rooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Rooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. On the elevation drawinqs specify the location and the net clear opening height and width of all required egress windows. 2013 California Residential Code (CRC) §R310. 16)Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. 17)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 18)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 2013 CBC § 1009. 19)Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 20)Specify on the plans whether the fireplace is a gas or solid wood-burning device. If the fireplace is a solid wood-burning device clearly state on the plans that the fireplace will meet all requirements as a U.S.EPA Phase II certified wood-burning device. Reviewed b� Date: 5-7-2015 Project Comments Date: To: From: May 4, 2015 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 X Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permifi for Declining Height Envelope and Attached Garage and Variance for Height for a new two-story dwelling at 2718 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027- 194-100 Staff Review: May 4, 2015 1. Provide a residential fire sprinkler system throughout the residence: a. Provide a minimum 1-inch water meter. b. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — A schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. c. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate fire sprinklers shall be installed under a separate deferred fire permit, approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 2. Building addressing shall be visible from the Easton Drive street front. 1 ,( �., � lyl�- L Reviewed by: Christine Reed � Date: 5-7-15 . CITY OF BURLINGAME ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGA,ME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD , BURLINGAME, CA 94010 - 'i PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 - www.burlingame.org Site: 27i � EASTON DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Environmental Scoping and Design Review for an Application for Design Review, Special Permit for an Attached Garage ond Variance for Height for a new two-story single family dweiling at 2718 EASTON DRIVE zoned R-1. APN 02J-194-100 Mailed: September 4, 2015 (Please refer to ofher side) PUBLIC HEARIN� NOTICE Ci#v of �urlinaame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PU�LIC HE�►IZING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNiNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 2718 EASTON DRIVE WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as follows: Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration ND- 587-P, is hereby approved. Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23�d dav of November, 2015 by the following vote: Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desiqn Review, Special Permit for an attached qaraqe and Variance for heiqht for a new two-story sinqle familv dwellinq at 2718 Easton Drive, Zoned R-1, Ruihonq Chen and HuiHua H. Lu propertv owners, APN: 027- 194-100; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 23, 2015, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. Said Design Review, Special Permit and Variance are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Special Permit and Variance are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular Planning Commission held on the 23�d dav of November, 2015, by the Burlingame, do meeting of the following vote Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Design Review, Special Permit and Variance 2718 Easton Drive Effective December 3, 2015 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 18, 2015, sheets A.1 through A.5, sheet L.1 and L.2, and Boundary Survey and Topographic Map; 2. that the area behind the lower floor is not excavated for use as living space or storage beyond the 21 SF room accessed from bedroom #1 to be used to store the forced air unit, as shown on the approved plan dated stamped November 13, 2015; 3. that any changes t� roof height or pitch, Division or Planning staf�; � building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's May 5, 2015 and October 24, 2015 memos, the Building Division's May 7, 2015 memo, the Parks Division's May 7, 2015 and August 12, 2015 memos, the Fire Division's September 14, 2015 memo, and the Stormwater Division's May 4, 2015 memos shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall Ordinance which requir submit a Waste Redu demolition of a structure comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling es affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to ction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full , interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 2 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Design Review, Special Permit and Variance 2718 Easton Drive Effective December 3, 2015 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Aesthetics 17. 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; 18. The landscaping shall Planning Commission. inspection; Air Quality be provided on the site as shown on the plans approved by the All landscaping shall be installed prior to scheduling the final building 19. 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, areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other /oose material off-site covered. graded shall be 3 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Design Review, Special Permit and Variance 2718 Easton Drive Effective December 3, 2015 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 soi/ binders are used. f. Idling times sha// be minimized eifher 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 DistricYs phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Biological Resources 20. The applicant shall comply with the City's on-site reforestation requirements as approved by the City Arborist. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 4 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Design Review, Special Permit and Variance 2718 Easton Drive Effective December 3, 2015 Culfural Resources 24. 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 feasib/e 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. 25. 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. 26. 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 responsib/e 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. Geo/ogy and Soils 27. 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 � EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Design Review, Special Permit and Variance 2718 Easton Drive Effective December 3, 2015 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. 28. There shall be no pile driving as part of this project. 29. The foundation for the single family dwelling shall be a drilled pier and grade beam design. 30. 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. 31. 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 Materials 32. 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. Hydrology and Water Quality 33. 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: 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 techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short- term biodegradable erosion control blankets; 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 0 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Design Review, Special Permit and Variance 2718 Easton Drive Effective December 3, 2015 e) The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. 34. The project shall comply with Ordinance 1503, City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. 35. The project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscape Ordinance. 36. 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. Noise 37. 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. 38. There shall be no pile driving as part of this project. 39. The foundation for the single family dwelling shall be a drilled pier and grade beam design. 40. 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 ofher measures to the extent feasible. 7 . CITY OF BURLINGAME � ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLIN,GAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD , � BURLINGAME, CA 94010 � " � -'- . PH: (650) 558-7250 o FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 2718 EASTON DRIVE The City of Qurlingame Pl�inning Commis;ion announces the following puhlic hearing on MONDAY, Id09/E,N��El� y3� 2015 at i:00 P.M, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Environmental Review and Design Review for an Application for Design Review, Special Permit for an Attached Garage and Variance for Height for a new two-story single family dwelling at 2718 EASTON �R9yE zoned R-l. APN 027-194-100 Mailed: November 13, 2015 (Please refer to other sicle) �9�V O� �U�'�1i1 �i�i� .. � : .:�` A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the pubiic hearing, described in the notice or in written corresponclence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners �ho receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director r.� �: _ � 4 _ � - „_ „ (Please refer to other side) � �' \\ i �`��. � � ;-...% � •� �g � �r. ,�+ � ��. �. i • i � • i I a i �� ir s b w �.� �+�' I i '` .� . � ry �� , y1. � � '.9 � �• Y i . �" ' ! �, . `� i yF� �li � r'. �5�'. ; ,�r �*`,Et � . � \ ` + , z ,� • - � � ` j •� .,' � . . '� ♦�f, i --�`'"� �_�-- -'� I �•� y `� a" � a I `� a'.� �� l� ��I.� � _ j r ^ `;• `.,' 9, • �, 4 � ,�" � �� .� � !�� .�w � t � � �y i' , - ' � � • �, ��' _ � �' \ / � / -• r � �� _--� � � r,. .Av '* ` '° 't�. �l � � � �� i�� ,i� � � ` � ,� �`"`� s� . ..4 , � .Mrl- .� �. _ / � � i _ r8 '� .'.:. � �'" / .�� .�r. ' : 1 .\ ". �kV: �� / . �� ' � . . � , f,�. ' ; ' `•��f �~ �'� � ,�� , I ` _ bp " -. << . �,a�'� � ��. � +.. � ' � N�� --i � �i • " _ri � . �,�-.� Ty a' • � — � � • \� t t - +' 6 , . = , _ a _ . . �, �,k,,, • ♦• "�' � � * ,' ' y ��w , �. -� �\ �\� _ � � `,� _�r � �� O `� � �f . u'x - , b / `4"��- �^^w � , \ _ � a� '.�y,. ; ` *L� `� • � � :� . . ,�, �� ,?. 1� _ �' % � ,� O�P �'�p �I ^� �,� �' " ` ,y,�1�.. !: �`. ..� t � � �� ti � ' ` �� ,.� �.--�� , � 0 � \ � � , . �. p' / � �� 1 .:�5 . '. ♦':- / o . �o �+ J' j•�� • f '. �i � �� Si�,� /�ry ,% ,�.!_._ � •'�'!/ � • ;� �/ :� , �, . i � --. , �' i �:..' • � � � \ /�� . -F �► � �� - .. � •�s' \ : - � in.. . � � ��•� � � .W. �' � . A ! . O � ~ • . � \ �� 'Y� ',,� \ � tf �,� 4 ,,��;; . `,�� , . �L \\� -, � O � - ' � - �� ., ti - . �r � �4�r � . *i . � \..� �'i � �,_ � � .. . � - ��'\\\` � �� "� � �`\ � \� \� � °< `•'•�{ . \ d `� ` _ � � :✓/ � � "�' ` Ie�� .. �:1�� ,''� . . � . _ � � �r� • 4,� �.. � ;. p- i I �, _ 1 � �i Io ' "' i�� ,' _ t � y�1 N ,, � t O ' ' ♦ +,.` - ' . :�;� . *,� , �,� � . � � t �. , , ,_ i `: %i r � � ��'� �` ` ., � + _ . � �". , � �••s , 3 _ .�l � r_�� / , ��m ,� �_ � �� ` j� �, ' , I` � ; �' - 5~ �i.._ , . �. _ y �,�, � ��,,,� O ' � � 3 y i� ��v :� • �% �� , P�� S R ��' � ; . ,; d � . ,. , � r� z '�„. a�c7, ;� . ' � �--� ;� ♦ � � :_� �..� . � � v - r � . . _ _ � :,� �� s City of Burlingame Environmental Scoping, Design Review, Variance and Special Permit Address: 2718 Easton Drive Item No. 9a Design Review Study Meeting Date: September 14, 2015 Request: Application for Environmental Scoping, Design Review, Special Permit for an Attached Garage and Variance for Height for a new, two story single family dwelling an attached garage. Applicant and Designer: James Chu, Chu Design Associates Property Owners: Henry and Rui Chen General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-194-100 Lot Area: 8,096 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Scoping: Section 15304, Class 4, of the California Environmental Quality Act exempts minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes, grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent, and gardening or landscaping that do not affect sensitive resources. Since the project involves grading on land with a slope greater than 10% (22.6% existing slope) and removal of protected-size trees, the project is subject to environmental review. As a part of preparing the Initial Study for the environmental document for this project, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission comment on any potential environmental effects which it feels should be investigated. City staff intends to prepare the environmental document for this project. Potential environmental effects identified by staff include construction impacts on a sloping lot, including erosion and loss of vegetation. These potential environmental effects which will be considered in the CEQA document include: • Aesthetics • Air Quality � Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use • Noise • Transportation • Utilities and Service Systems • Energy • Cumulative Impacts The standard list of items investigated in an Initial Study is attached for reference. The issues identified by the Commission will be incorporated into the environmental documents for the project. At this time, staff notes that based on preliminary analysis, it appears that the type of CEQA document required will be a(Mitigated) Negative Declaration. However, the type of CEQA document will be finalized during the environmental review process. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to 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 currently contains a two- story single family dwelling and the lot slopes up from Easton Drive to Alvarado Avenue with an approximately 22.6% slope. Environmental Scoping, Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 2718 Easton Drive PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Parking: 2 covered 2 covered (20' x 20') (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 (9' x 20') _ Building Height: 46'-2" 3 20'-0" for lots that slope downward more than 25% DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 ' (0.32 x 16,227 SF) + 1,100 SF = 6293 SF (0.39 FAR) z Special Permit for an attached garage required. 3 Variance for 46'-2" height required. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should review the proposed project and the areas of potential significant environmental effects suggested by staff. The Commission should add any additional effects of the project that it anticipates might be potentially significant. The areas of investigation for environmental evaluation as defined by CEQA are listed on the attached sheet for your reference. Catherine Barber Senior Planner c. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer Henry & Rui Chen, property owners Attachments: Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application — Attached Garage Variance Application - Height Arborist Report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services LLC, dated February 18, 2015 Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 4, 2015 Aerial Photo 3 Environmental Scoping, Design Review, Variance and Special Permif 2718 Easton Drive The steepest portion of the lot is along Easton Drive and contains several large trees including, Pine, Cedar and Oak trees. There are nine (9) trees proposed for removal with this project, five (5) of those trees are considered protected. 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. The protected trees proposed for removal include three (3) Monterey pines, one (1) Deodar cedar and one (1) Pittosporum. An arborist report has been prepared for this site and is attached for reference. 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 finro-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. The height limit for the R-1 zoning district is 30 feet or 2'/z 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". C.S. 25.26.060(a)(2) requires approval of a variance for any structure of 36 feet or taller. All other zoning requirements have been met; the applicant is requesting the following applications: Environmental Scoping and Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (1) (4) (6)); ■ Special Permit for a new attached two-car garage (CS 25.26.035 (a)); and ■ Variance for height (25.26.060 (a)(2)). 2718 Easton Drive Lot Area: 8,096 SF Plans date stam ed: Au ust 7, 2013 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 39'-5" 15'-0" (block average- 39'-2") (2nd flr): 39'-5" 20'-9" (block average) , �..........� ......................................................................................... Side (left): 7'-0" 6 -0 (right): 7'-0" 6'-0" �_......... , � ..... �.� ............................................... . . . .. Rear (1st flr): 31 -6 15 -0 (2nd flr): N/A 20'-0" . .....................................................................................' ..................................... Lot Coverage: 2,675 SF 3 238 SF 33.0% 40.0% :........................................................................................................................................................................................................ FAR: 3,637 SF 3,690 SF' 0.44 FAR 0.45 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 --- E ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FROM APPENDIX G OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES AESTHETICS. Would the project: ❑ Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? AGRICULTURAL 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? o Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 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: ❑ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ 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)? ❑ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: ❑ Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ Have a substantial or 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ❑ Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ❑ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: ❑ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in '15064.5? ❑ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ❑ Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? ❑ Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: ❑ Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) 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. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Landslides? ❑ Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? ❑ Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ❑ Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? ❑ Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❑ Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ❑ Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: ❑ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ 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? ❑ Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ 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? ❑ 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? ❑ 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? ❑ Impair implementation of, or physically interFere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ 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? HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: o Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ 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 (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)? ❑ 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 or siltation on- or off-site? -2- Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines ❑ 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? ❑ 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? ❑ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ 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? ❑ Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ 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? ❑ Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: ❑ Physically divide an established community? ❑ 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? ❑ Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: ❑ 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? ❑ 2b) 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? NOISE. Would the project result in: ❑ Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ❑ Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ❑ A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ 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? ❑ 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? POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: ❑ Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? -3- Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: ❑ Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? RECREATION. ❑ 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? ❑ 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? TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: ❑ 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)? ❑ Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ❑ 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? ❑ Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ❑ Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: ❑ Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ 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? ❑ 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? ❑ Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ 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? ❑ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ❑ 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? -4- Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines ❑ Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ❑ Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? -5-