The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About146 Crescent Avenue - Technical StudyCITY OF BURLINC�AME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 . � . ., a .. f—, �-� �LARL! IVCst4N1� �� ? � ..;"„° � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division PH: (650) 558-7250 R E C E i V E D FAX: (650) 696-3790 JUL 27 20i� NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATI��Y ��R To: Interested Individuals From: Citv of Burlin�ame Countv Clerk of San Mateo Communitv Development Department Plannin� Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Notice of intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-593-P) Project Title: 146 Crescent Avenue, New Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage Project Location: 146 Crescent Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The subject property currently contains a one-story single family dwelling with an attached one-car garage. The subject property is located directly adjacent to Pershing Park. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing one-story single family dwelling with an attached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached one-car garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,282 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,298 SF (0,54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. All Zoning Code requirements have been met. This project is subject to CEQA because on based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. An historic survey has been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that it is not eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places. In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental quality Act (CEC1A) Guidelines, notice is hereby given of the City's intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A mitigated negative declaration is a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effect on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid effect or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of an Initial Study and mitigations, 'Finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declar�ation and Initial Study that are available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010. As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on lulv 27, 2016. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on Au�ust 22, 2016. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination set forth in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing to: City of Burlingame Community Development Department — Planning Division. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period described above. � PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 146 Crescent Avenue, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been tentatively scheduled for Au�ust 22. 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: Julv 27, 2016 �r 146 CRESCEIVT AVEIVUE INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. Project Title: 146 Crescent Avenue, New Two-Story Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage � Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3 4. 5. Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: R-1 William Meeker, Community Development Director (650) 558-7250 146 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 James Chu, Chu Design Associates 146 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Low-Density Residential APN: 028-292-140 8. Description of the Project: The subject property currently contains a one-story single family dwelling with an attached one-car garage. The subject property is located directly adjacent to Pershing Park. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing one-story single family dwelling with an attached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached one-car garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,282 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,298 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed house will have four bedrooms and total of two off-street parking spaces are required, one of which must be covered. The new detached garage will provide one covered parking spaces (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. This project is subject to CEQA based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, that indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. The subject property is located in Burlingame Park No. 2, therefore a historic survey was completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that it is not eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the southern portion of Burlingame west of EI Camino Real, in the Burlingame Park No. 2 Subdivision. Pershing Park abuts the property immediately to the south. The house with detached garage that is currently located on-site were built in 1952, one of the last additions to the Burlingame Park subdivision. All of the properties in this subdivision, as well as neighboring subdivisions were included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. This area is made up entirely of single family residential properties. The Town of Hillsborough lies immediately to the west of the subject property and the Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies three blocks to the east of the subject property. 1 � Initial Study 146 Crescent Avenue 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: There are no permits required from other public agencies. However, San Mateo County is a responsible agency. A building permit is required from the Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division. This space intentionally left b/ank. � � .. . �sv � ,�� ., � . �' ,�',�^� � � + i.;�O,M `E� � '`$ ,r ' � ; � �.s�r � .'"� ,�ti � . �� ti ' �s7�� ,;- a��` `.,� ��4� �,' � ti Q�� '�� _ � ` � ��.��..=:a �" -s \, ' . �� ,,, a�� y ,,,� � '� �.A ._ � .� � � �� .t �,� � .� � �., . p' � � ��i��'d. a� �,�, ..4� �� 1�� 4v 4 '�` � +i� 0� '� -. "�- : � s� �� :�J' * � �� '��' '3�� . � A"- ,� �`�� '�' a'� � � � � �� i � � � � r� �� ' � \'��`{�' '�� y , '� « ;$Y � r .. �� s �� ?' �'�' *tk'4 5\ J� � � � \ �`� � �8.� � �--£'ca. � rw ,N t4$ `,i Y,�',� ��.., � � � .. w � �`„"�` J ` _ L� a?) - 'v,,��, `,� '�r*. �,' ! �t�. - *Y �� €' � \'� . � � :M �,5, "}��.� � � � 4 � �. � �� .��A` _\ ��a� 8 �� j'�p4 \,� �O� F � �` y � � � � f`� �� -� �-�� ' Q�v �'4 � � r `ti �� '� - O 1 ttt ' � �, � � _ � � � fr � �� ,�� ''6 � = '�� ' ° �`�.� �,�� "- � . ��f��. ` W : . > � > . s %� ,w, ,a S �� p>,� / � 9r �.� � �� = �' � t �� - 6f�� :' i �' � � `\, A �, >�E k'.`� ��'� ,p'4 ` r �� .�"�= y `� `.� jj � -�"` � � � • ; •� s'* �, .�4 , �'� � � �' � � j ` " �� '�,_`� <�r �+� `. t �j. 9 f � .�. �-u �''+�,"� `d 1� 1�\ #�`'� p`� \l f „#� . � E�+. � � �'�. �� :. `�'"�$x" ,r <f{ 9 � 4 �. �.'�'�' �a, - ;� ^4`. a - �� d / `'` '� . S' _ _ . vt a"a. _ , t ic � � �- � �� . � � �' �� ' g � ; `�+ �s�;; `�l �� +�,,. . ` �� . at /f yr � � �E tR - ..� ` � �� J \ fa "' `.3. ' <` � " lU - , . , _ � � � �� . �m �_. A�� `� �� '�"'�r� _ �,� -- ��T. �� .`�� . f s � � �yd � � '�� ` � treJ� � .S � > .�'` - 7�4 g . �� = � "- � ��t''d '�'.. �.. k � � �� . � �` � _ � � � � w �' -� : � '�3� �- �� „ °� � �� ,- _ ''� .. � �,� � � `�-_ �� . � ,, "�e � � � � ' ��' a � ��. :�.:w`'� \ 'f �� '�`��, � br ' a � � � +`�� '+�� "� f # �. � � � � ,�. � IT�� t.. � ' "� ` � �'� � ��t � � ` �r �� `� � � �d �� ,� ��' � �� , �� ^�� +' ~`^�-.._�..�' : �� - ' � , , � � �I : ti. t th � i.+-.- t k�' � ��- � � � � �� . .. \ `� � � .. r� _. . .a�,"�"^�. ; � z' ' �`' � �j� y ' $"i � ��' ; .,i` . �7 �� 7� a �� , �} �' .. � ;y ;,:. � �5 � a� �� _ �� # '`^ c� "`�..� � � � �'' � y �� c � �� `� � 1y , ))/�� r : � ,'y /� 4 �;�'j�y � � � �..,r ` f �tf� ��s �I : �t'„g � `. . . f ..,[.,,,� ' � f `ti: v. � � � . . :.4 � ( � - �•.., . `� j i� -. �� _�`y_ (� � t � �^... �.. t � , � ��4� �-� : . � 'A f � ^�;.. � : . : --� ' � � j 7 _ -.� . . , . �. � � � .� �. . �`^� -�",- , o. "i . � - � '� � -�..;.�`.u, �.: ,q � ,�., �` [ � � cs .. _ � . y.k '��"�� ' "` �.` E __�# #1Lw_, �''`�..� fr r , _ �' � . g , �t - -'-�. . -• .�. �i w '�` �. .-��, =+ � 4t . .a in ' �� ,1�,A �-e.� �� _...,� � .. .. � � , s �,. ,,,� � ,e�s �. , � � � t�y x " � � '�``:.,- 'W� _ "- ''^�� `q, ru �.�' � .a' �p`� ��Q'Sy f rt�,� -�..,� � or" �n ° � _/ �` �'�"- , AV�-g`�# ''�-� , . -� -,.. � . (J � +3 � �;,._ � �� : . . � „+� ; j ==#.e. �,`* .a, - � ! - h .`= �- �� '�* .�� " bf a � _r. «R �' : ' � f at �� 7� ,,,�"' v„ � � ""-�"`,�"`-`.�`, ; hx� JO _ f r �- y ( � y � �,.a � .�- _ -a�e; a � � � •�, . '�-... : - '�,,, ' ', �:� �j jf� "��u 4 Ut-,.., .� ...._.�� :� ,� ��-: a .:: r�x � - � �i ,( �� 4__,.�1 ,_, �u _a�._ .,'?. .,�.,x�,�_ , _��.,.�..,_ _:�I Initial Study 146 CrescentAvenue Figure 2 � � ��/ �� " 0 , initiai Study Environmental Impacts 146 Crescent Avenue 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 ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation Q Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: � I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITI�ATED 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. /�///__� ..,�.�� William Meeker Printed Name JuIV 27, 2016 Date City of Burlin�ame For 5 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting lnformation 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 Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �❑ n � , 146 CrescentAvenue No Impact � � � � The site currently contains a one story single family dwelling with an attached garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached one-car garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,282 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,298 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed house will have four bedrooms and total of two off-street parking spaces are required, one of which must be covered. The new detached garage will provide one covered parking spaces (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. The proposed house would cover 36.6% (2,255 SF) of the 6,148 SF lot, where 40% (2,459 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The height as measured from average top of curb will be 27'-10" where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed. The house would be set back 22'-1" from the front property line, where 15'=0" is the minimum required and 27'-10" from the rear property line,�where 15' is the minimum required. Exterior materials on the proposed house include a wood shake roof, wood shingle siding along with horizontal wood siding and square wood columns at the front porch and two chimneys with stone veneer. Exterior lighting provided on the lot would need to conform to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be directed onto the site. Given the proposed setbacks, that the subject property and surrounding area is flat and that the project includes a robust landscape plan, views from surrounding properties would be minimally impacted. The neighborhood consists of a variety of styles, most of which are two-story dwellings. The subject property would be consistent with the development in this, area. While the project has the potential to generate an incremental increase in light generated on the site compared to existing conditions, the project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area since the house would be screened by other existing houses and existing and proposed vegetation and trees. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required L Initial Sources 146 Crescent Avenue The City of Burlingame Genera/ Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 — Electrical Code, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. Site Visit on June 6, 2016 This space intentionally left blank. Initial 146 Crescent Avenue Less Than Significant or Significant Potentiolly with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Intorporation Impact No Impact 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Ca�ifornia Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or � � � � Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or � � � � a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment � � � � which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site does not include active agricultural uses, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use and would have no effect on farmland or any property subject to a Williamson Act contract. Mitigation Measures: None Required Sources The City of Burlingame General P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. This space intentionally left blank. 0 Initial Study 146 Crescent Avenue Cess Than Significant or Significant Potential/y with Less Than Significont Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting lnformation Sources): Impacf IncorporaYion ImpatY No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ � applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ � � � substantiaily 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 objectionabie odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ � substantial number of people? Discussion The proposed application is for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling with a detached garage. While this project would accommodate a larger dwelling unit for habitation, the change in emissions is insignificant. The subject property is zoned for low-density residential development and with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction; the proposed project would not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. Demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012. � Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantiai adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected wetlands, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, orstate habitat conservation plan? Discussion Less Than Significant or SignifitanY Potential/y with Less Than Significont Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 146 CrescentAvenue No Impact �� ■ /1 � ►� ❑ � ❑ � ■ �I'I The site currently has an existing single family residence with an attached garage. The City's Reforestation Ordinance defines a protected size tree as a tree with a 48-inch circumference when measured 54-inches above adjacent grade. There is one existing 24-inch acacia tree located along the north side property line that will remain. In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with a single-family residence is required to provide a minimum of one, 24-inch box-size, non-fruit tree for every 1,000 SF of living space. The proposed landscape plan for the project will be required to comply with the reforestation requirements prior to building permit issuance by planting two additional 24-inch landscape trees. 10 Initial Study Sources City of Burlingame, Parks Division Memoranda, dated May 19, 2016. 146 Crescent Avenue The City of Burlingame Genera/ Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. Map of Areas of Specia/ Biologica/ Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016 This space intentionally left b/ank. F�� Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion Cess Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant lmpatt Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 146 Crescent Avenue No Impact ❑ � � � The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated February 12, 2016. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria. Those four criterion include Events, Persons, Architecture and Information Potential. The following is an excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation that was conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc.: "The house at 146 Crescent Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed locally. 146 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Constructed in 1952, the building does convey contextual significance as a single- family residence associated with the continued mid-century development of Burlingame Park, but it is not among the earliest homes in the neighborhood, nor does was that period especially influential in the development of the neighborhood. Therefore, the property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. 12 Initial Study 146 Crescent Avenue 146 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion B/2 (Persons). Research has not revealed any association with people significant in local, state or national history. Several residents and owners were engineers, but none appear to be particularly influential in the development of their industry or any other related context. The Lindquists were long-time owners and occupants of the property, but research has not revealed them to be part of a larger historic context. Research does not indicate that any former owners and occupants rose to a level of significance at the local, state, or national level such that the property would be individually eligible for listing under Criterion B/2. 146 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The architect and builder are currently unknown, so it cannot be said to be the work of a master at this time. The original portion of the house is an example of a 1950s Ranch-style residence that was prevalent during that period with its gable roof, exposed rafter tails, single level of living space, original windows and bay window in front. However, it is not a particularly outstanding or distinctive example of Ranch style architecture in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, nor is this a representative or common architectural style for the neighborhood. Therefore, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion C/3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 146 Crescent Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4(Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this re po rt." Based on the above noted finding in the Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated February 12, 2016, the project would have no impact on cultural resources. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Historica/ Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated February 12, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 13 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located.on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion Significant or Potentially Signifitant Impact �❑ Less Than $ICJR%f%CpRt with Mitigation lncorporation ,� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significont Impact ❑� 146 Crescent Avenue No Impact �I ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The site is flat and located in a semi-urban setting which has been developed with single family residential dwellings for the last 100 years, with most of the lots in the vicinity over 6,000 SF in area. There will be less seismic exposure to people and equipment than at present, since the new single family residence will comply with current California Building Code seismic standards. The site is approximately two miles from the San Andreas Fault. The project will be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability Mitigation Measures: None Required. 14 Initial Study Sources 146 Crescent Avenue 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/liquefactionsusceptibilitv/, accessed June, 2016. 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 Cumu/ative Damage Potentia/ from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated May 16, 2016. Project Plans date stamped May 12, 2016. This space intentiona/ly left blank. 15 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectiy, 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 PotenYiol/y with Less Than Significant Mitigation Sig»ificant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 146 CrescentAvenue No Impact � � 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 legislat+on 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 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and 16 Initial Study 146 Crescent Avenue Precursor Screening Level Sizes) set a screening threshold of 56 dwelling units for any individual single family residential project. The proposed project would be comprised of one unit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD's 2010 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD Homepage, accessed May 2012). As such, lead agencies need to determine appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Lead agencies may rely on the BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures. However, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project's significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air District's 1999 Thresholds of Significance and to make determinations regarding the significance of an individual project's air quality impacts based on substantial evidence in the record for that project. For this analysis, the City of Burlingame has determined that the BAAQMD's significance thresholds in the updated May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for project operations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are the most appropriate thresholds for use to determine air quality impacts of the proposed Project. First, Burlingame has used the May 2011 BAAQMD thresholds in previous environmental analyses under CEQA and found them to be reasonable thresholds for assessing air quality impacts. In addition, these thresholds are lower than the 1999 BAAQMD thresholds, and thus use of the thresholds in the May 2011 CEQA Guidelines is more conservative. Therefore, the city concludes these thresholds are considered reasonable for use in this analysis. In this case, the proposed project includes one unit. Given that the proposed project would fall well below the 56 dwelling units threshold specified in BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for single family residential development, it is not anticipated that the project will create significant operational GHG emissions. Climate Action Plan. Burlingame's Climate Action Plan is designed to focus on near- and medium-term solutions to reduce its emissions. These program and policy recommendations were developed after careful consideration of the unique characteristics and demographics of the Burlingame community and fhe 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. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 17 Initiai Study Sources 146 Crescent Avenue 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 16, 2016 This space intentionally left blank. 18 Initial Study Significant oi Potentially Significant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: lmpact 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materiais sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion 146 CrescentAvenue Less Than Sigrtificant with Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporation Impoct No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � , ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its residential nature, this project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. There are no known health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. NPDES Best Management Practices are required to ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 19 Initial Study Sources: 146 Crescent Avenue The City of Burlingame 6eneral Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, accessed June, 2016. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility P/an, San Francisco International Airport, November, 2012. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 20 Initiai Study Significant or Potentially Signifitant Issues (and Supporting lnformation 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 of pre-existing nearby weils 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 alterthe existing drainage pattern of the � site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would � exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? � g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as � mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year fiood 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 resuit of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? � Discussion Signifitant with Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 146 CrescentAvenue No Impatt � � //' ►1 �/ �/ ►1 /1 �I ►1 The proposed project is a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway. The project site is located in Flood Zone X, which is determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. The site is tied into existing water main and storm water collection distribution lines which have adequate capacity to serve the existing building. All of the surface water will be required to percolate into pervious services on-site with the remainder draining to the street. There will be an insignificant increase to the amount of impervious surface area due to the increase in the footprint of the proposed structures and driveway width. This added impervious surface will cause a slight increase in storm water runoff, but is considered insignificant given the size of the lot and the remaining pervious areas. Since the site is less than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the state-mandated water conservation program; although water conservation measures as required by the City will be met. The domestic potable water supply for Burlingame and the proposed project area is not provided by groundwater sources, but rather from surface water sources maintained by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Groundwater would not be used to supply water for the project, and no dewatering of the site is anticipated. 21 Initial5tudy 146 CrescentAvenue Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. The project proponent will be required to ensure that all contractors implement BMP's during construction. This project is subject to the state mandated Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance; compliance will be determined by approval of a complete Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist, and landscape and irrigation design plans at time of the building permit application. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame Genera/ Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipa! Code, Title 26, Chapter26.16—Physica/ Design of lmprovements, Burlingame, California. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, FIRM- Panel 154 E, Map 06081C0154E, effective date October 16, 2012. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated May 20, 2016. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated May 19, 2016. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. This space intentional/y left blank. 22 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 146 Crescent Avenue Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Signifitant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑� ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � b) Confiict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or � regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion The subject property is currently occupied by a one-story single family dwelling with an attached garage and the proposed project consists of a two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF for lots in this area, based on the City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712. The existing lot is 6,148 square feet in area and is not part of a proposed subdivision or lot adjustment. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The project is subject to single family residential Design Review. The general plan would allow a density of eight units to the acre and the application is for one replacement unit on 0.14 acres, a density of 1.12 units per acre. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The subject property is within the Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 2, which abuts the Town of Hillsborough to the west, and which was included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences, all of which are within the City of Burlingame city limits. The 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. The proposed residence conforms to the measurable requirements of the zoning code. The Planning Commission will review the project and determine compliance with the Residential Design Review Guidelines and Special Permit criteria. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame Genera/ P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Tit/e 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. 23 Initial Study 146 Crescent Avenue � Cess Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Resuit in the loss of availability of a known mineral � � � � resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- � � � � important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion According to the San Mateo County Genera/ P/an, Mineral Resources Map, the project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. San Mateo County, General Plan, October 18, 2010. This space intentionally left blank. 24 ' Initial Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 12. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 Less Than Significant or Significant Potentiaily with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant lmpatt Incorporation Impatt ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 146 Crescent Avenue No Impatt � � � � � � The surrounding area has been occupied by single family dwellings for many years. There will be no significant increase to the ambient noise level in the area as a result of the proposed single family dwelling. 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 as well as recreational noise generated by users of the adjacent public park (Pershing Park). The new structure will be compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. Construction of the proposed dwelling will not require pile driving or other significant vibration causing construction activity. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code, which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. In addition, the site is located outside the designated noise-impacted area from San Francisco International Airport. The project does not include any permanent operational activity that would result in excessive or perceptible vibration, and the operational impact of the project on increased vibration levels would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 25 Initial Sources 146 Crescent Avenue The City of Burlingame 6eneral P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoninq, Burlingame, California. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memorandum, dated May 16, 2016. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibi/ity Plan, San Francisco International Airport, November, 2012. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 26 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 elsewhere? Discussion Less Than Signifitant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impoct ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �� 146 Crescent Avenue No Impact � � � This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density residential uses. The proposed single family dwelling conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element (2015). The proposed project will not create any more housing because it replaces an existing single family dwelling on the same parcel. Since the subject property contains a single family dwelling that is currently vacant, the project would not displace existing housing or people. A new road, extension of a roadway or other infrastructure is not required for the single family dwelling and therefore the project would not induce substantial population growth. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on population and housing. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources 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. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. This space intentiona/ly left b/ank. 27 Initial Study Issues (and SupporYing Information SourcesJ: 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physicaliy 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? Significant or Potentially Significant Impact � ■ � ■ ■ Less Than Significant with Mitiqation Incorporation � � � � � Less Than SignificanY Impact � � � � � 146 Crescent Avenue No Impact ►/ /�'' ►1 ;►/ �1 Discussion The subject property is located within the City of Burlingame jurisdiction. The proposed project includes replacing a single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling on the site, which represents an insignificant increase in the total population of the City. Therefore, existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the proposed residential unit. Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which also serves the Town of Hillsborough. Three stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road. As part of the permitting process, the Central County Fire Department would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city fire safety regulations. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional demand for fire protection services, and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities, the project's potential impact on fire protection services would be less than significant. Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department, located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project consists of replacing a single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling. Therefore, the project would not result in an increased demand for police services or require the expansion or construction of police facilities. The project's potential impact on police services would be less than significant. Students in the City of Burlingame are served by two school districts: Burlingame School District (BSD) for grades K-8 and San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for grades 9-12. The proposed project would not add any additional residential units; it is anticipated that the potential number of school-age children would not increase or only increase slightly. Therefore, any students generated by the project would be accommodated by the existing capacity of the two districts, resulting in a less than significant impact. m Initial Study 146 CrescentAvenue The City of Burlingame is served by several parks and recreation facilities, including 13 parks and playgrounds, an aquatic center, and a golf and soccer center. Since there would be no increase in the number of residential units, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other public facilities and therefore the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memoranda, dated May 19, 2016. City of Burlingame Website, www.burlin�ame.or� This space intentionally left blank. 29 Initial Study 146 Crescent Avenue Less Than Significant or Significant Potentiolly with Less Than Significanf Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting lnformation SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation Impatf No lmpact 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 ptanned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. While the subject property is directly adjacent to Pershing Park, the proposed project will have no impact on the park. The site involved in this project is not presently zoned or used for recreational purposes. Since the proposed project consists of replacing a single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other recreation facilities. Therefore, impacts to recreation would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame Genera/ P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. This space intentionally left blank. � - Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in airtraffic 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 or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 146 Crescent Avenue No Impact ' �/ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The site is on Crescent Avenue, a local north/south street that provides access to Ralston Avenue, which connects to EI Camino Real, a regional arterial. This project will not create an increase in the traffic generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any temporary incremental increase to traffic or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities. The new dwelling will have four bedrooms. Two parking spaces are required on site, one of which must be covered. Each of the covered spaces are required to be at least 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep. The new detached garage will provide one code complying covered parking spaces and one uncovered space will be provided in the driveway. The proposed project meets the off-street parking requirement established in the zoning code. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of eurlingame General P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Tit/e 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility P/an, San Francisco International Airport, November, 2012. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. 31 Issues (and Supportinq Information 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 federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion Significant or Less Than Potentially Significant with Significant Mitigation fmpact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Thon Significant Impact No Impact ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The subject property is currently occupied by a single family dwelling. Water is provided to the subject property by an existing 12-inch cast iron pipe along Crescent Avenue. The proposed residence will be connected to an existing 8-inch PVC sewer line along Crescent Avenue. To prevent flooding a backflow prevention device is required to be installed. All of the surface water will be required to percolate on-site into pervious areas then drain to Burlingame Creek. The Engineering Division notes that no additional storm water runoff is allowed from the post-construction project site. The City Engineer has indicated that there is adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage systems to accommodate the new house. Therefore, the project's impact to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant. The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems. All new utility connections to serve the site and that are affected by the development will be installed to meet current code standards; sewer laterals from the main on the site to serve the new structure will be checked and replaced if necessary. The current solid waste service provider is Recology, which hauls waste collected in Burlingame to the San Carlos Transfer Station and the Recyclery of San Mateo County for sorting then disposal at Ox Mountain Landfill. Demand for solid waste disposal services generated by the project could be adequately served by 32 " Initial Study 146 Crescent Avenue existing capacity at the transfer station and landfill and the project would comply with ail applicable regulations related to solid waste; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractor would be required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream and transport and recycle the construction waste separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid waste generated during operation of the project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division - Water, Sewer and Storm Drain Maps; accessed July 7, 2016. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memoranda dated May 20, 2016. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated May 19, 2016. Recology San Mateo County, www.recolo�vsanmateocountv.com, site accessed July 7, 2016. Project Plans date stamped May 12, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 33 � , , Initial Study 146 Crescent Avenue Significant or Less Than Potentia/ly Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation lmpact No Impact 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the � � � � quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually � � � � limited, but cumulative considerable? ("Cumulative considerable" means thatthe 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 efferts of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will � � � � cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion The project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animat 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 particular to the project or its site. No project-specific significant effects particular to the project or its site were identified. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project wilf not have significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indireetly. This space intenrionally left b/ank. � CITY OF BURLINC�AME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 �.��a�` � �r.. . ��..� �u��srv��a� ,��' . �.'��✓ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division PH: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 R E C E i V E D � JUL 27 2016 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARAT�N�Y �pwAGER To: Interested Individuals From: City of Burlin�ame Countv Clerk of San Mateo Communitv Development Department Plannins Division 501 Primrose Road Burlin�ame, CA 94010 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-593-P) Project Title: 146 Crescent Avenue, New Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage Project Location: 146 Crescent Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The subject property currently contains a one-story single family dwelling with an attached one-car garage. The subject property is located directly adjacent to Pershing Park. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing one-story single family dwelling with an attached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached one-car garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,282 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,298 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. All Zoning Code requirements have been met. This project is subject to CEQA because on based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. An historic survey has been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that it is not eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places. In accordance with Section 15072{a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby given of the City's intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A mitigated negative declaration is a negative declarativn prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effect on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid effect or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of an Initial Study and mitigations,'finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Decla�ation and Initial Study that are available for public �eview at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010. As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on Julv 27, 2016. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on Ausust 22, 2016. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination set forth in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing to: City of Burlingame Community Development Department — Planning Division. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period described above. � PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 146 Crescent Avenue, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been tentatively scheduled for Ausust 22. 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: Julv 27, 2016 146 CRESCENT AVENUE INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. Project Title: 146 Crescent Avenue, New Two-Story Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage 2 Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. 4. 5 Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: R-1 William Meeker, Community Development Director (650) 558-7250 146 CrescentAvenue Burlingame, California 94010 James Chu, Chu Design Associates 146 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Low-Density Residentia) APN: 028-292-140 8. Description of the Project: The subject property currently contains a one-story single family dwelling with an attached one-car garage. The subject property is located directly adjacent to Pershing Park. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing one-story single family dwelling with an attached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached one-car garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,282 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,298 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed house will have four bedrooms and total of two off-street parking spaces are required, one of which must be covered. The new detached garage will provide one covered parking spaces (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. This project is subject to CEQA based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, that indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. The subject property is located in Burlingame Park No. 2, therefore a historic survey was completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that it is not eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the southern portion of Burlingame west of EI Camino Real, in the Burlingame Park No. 2 Subdivision. Pershing Park abuts the property immediately to the south. The house with detached garage that is currently located on-site were built in 1952, one of the last additions to the Burlingame Park subdivision. All of the properties in this subdivision, as well as neighboring subdivisions were included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. This area is made up entirely of single family residential properties. The Town of Hillsborough lies immediately to the west of the subject property and the Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies three blocks to the east of the subject property. 1 Initiai Study 146 Crescent Avenue 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: There are no permits required from other public agencies. However, San Mateo County is a responsible agency. A building permit is required from the Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division. This space intentionally left blank. ;.^a�'—C}z'' � � �{ . � � ' i - � "� § �`� " � ` �` �, � •� � $+` ��o��'t � <:� �'� �� y � t .��, �� ,4 : �� f „ r� �� .my� �'�, '� �' rt �9� d4�. � r �� . ��6 � �'C� r � � �� '�.. `�.�� '� �,dy ,� � � �� `� � � � ; . ~`� ` ��\� t '�� ; \ � a. �„�'0� a :`�� < ,�. �. s-. 4 a' � y�7 a�c �� itr � '�� r.,,�` _ �� - � ' � iy�� $ � '�,S r,�"r�- � a�' � � � U��d�� ''� m� '�� ° �� '�� .• �` t ,,t� 't�,� �."_, z' . '� 'z'= � ��'R � .�' ��'la `.� ��'` '� - ;C '<. \ s�.. ,� h' �'" iF � s,.p � %`� \�i��Bj� � �� 4r � ;�$ ��i r�� , ` � � fi �� ' � � 3 �=, �i �` � " �i � og , � � y� � � `. '`• ' ft � `a � '. a�,� , � - J � ; � �` y�` � '"��v � �, ti ao- _ � � r�, 'v �' £ f. l ' d` ��+�, �4 �F ,�y,� \� �� ' � �y � e �� j � �° , 0�., � j Cs� a* � ,,, v� ; � � ` ` s+ -� . � � � . �� . � �� ;. ,� .'k" : ,W�: w� t�.. \ � �, t�, �^ _..� , a � :��, � � � � a 0 `'+,' � � > � � �S, ��: � ~� j�� '� =: � � � � �� f +'�, it,s ��' '�rz�w� , �� \� " 's'� �`'� � � �`+, � 4f - C} " ; � ; �' �, l� +� �` `ry'��„� ' �,��' . ' '� `d � � � � �, � rr >h � �`� � � � �;� '9 �� , �� . .'.� �� 4�`� � , �.� �� \ � � � i `; 'i �� " ��,� �;' � ` � �`,�`�` �-�' �-�' °'�„� � r � � ' a,�. � ?J y '�y \� �, � • \ „ , 'Ii .�% ? � J ,. t � ., / , 'w� �, s elr � ,F ' .�s.T� , , / - �' �'� � �'� � � �� tu �y,y;� `r � � ) �. q. �, -r � " »., 4 , w,m �'h y � y+ ' J 3�+K � i `. { `3 .. r � 11 ��' f e . � Z L�� ' s � . ' ` � �'v Y'a�* �; Ca X >r� c' �A46 .. �. �� TM ��"� � ' ,�r C ��{� ,�r+r: � "`-� � ,r� � � � � � �� "� �` � A = " -'�,y. � er� � � � , �,�'"� ' "fi f �'M � '�$� . � - t4 '�-: � +:,� 1- . , � ,. - �,� � >` - . . r > ,y� . . CR d v �"�+�f' ' I *n� . "S` � ''�..,. � !, :�N �. �s � - ^d�.� � � `� �,�> � � . _td� � v * y '.' "',� � � � �+l�� , �t -. �.�'�' � :_� � 3';_ ..� 4rs.d �., � �� v ..r +s�� q . j� � a I� . \ � � � �� r ,� .�'. � x - � � r '�; \ � e� � � � '�.. ''�. � �� y � � a � � �y �.�',�� ' ,} � �a�;�� , -�'''Y � h� � - :� �- `�" `� � � .'� � �?' � � . � �'� �,� �..,- � � � , , � a„ �. � �, > � - q` � � -.-t�. -- . � v,. � ..9'J��= �: � -� �� f�� n �- y� t j-- 1 Sa �� '� 15,i;�� ' j - ��,, � s" '�� ` � � `rt 'k`i : � � '� �' � � �-�.. ,�. � � � -...� � �� ---�-� � a -. � ~` —.� � � � �. �,�:, �1'-'``.�-.,� � � � 1 � � � -�� I ; ; �' �,. 'i j'""`�„�:. 5 1 `" r�� , ;�,��`,� ` � ! � � . � ,."{sygj .. .. > �� , � � � - � � �# ' : �� "� � � �� _.�'A1F� ,�- '� ,'"t .. > "� � �t a , � �'�w" 's --�"`„� � .£ �#►��. N � � ��, �` / �' #�'� ,_ "'t ' : �,'."` =ip! �� h�i � � �� w� ��'-�'t, *�` 'f N'p`Sv ": '�.,,,_ �ti � � � ��^—•.,,,_.; ��E�'�� "r t� `� ch R� ` `�°` � ^`� �` n--, � � .� `� � �•„„ ! �� + �, � `�` zw.. � '�,w. s"`�. '�-'°,.. � '�J��.. tti� � > s � ; t+t y � i:, 5� 7i Y' ` � ��-Y,4 � �.,,,.� �� ; ,�, , �. vn :� : � . . . .'.��e� ve � �, .-� - g 2 "`„—.. � :'� ��.,. '•� �. � �' � ` � .. � � �` - � �..� a.. � . ��-., r� ....,� .� -. .. �.: �_ . � ``--: `..'�.,. . �.`„�� .z: _ .. %_ � ..��r_e� _.� ,.: _.__ , ... .__.� . , ....._._�. � Initial Study 146 Crescent Avenue Figure 2 �� " � °G. Initial Study Environmental Impacts Environmentai Factors Potentially Affected 146 Crescent Avenue The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑ Cuitural Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Minera) Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation / Traffic DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings ofSignificance � 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. /�///_-_� � ,� . �;�� William Meeker Printed Name July 27, 2016 Date Citv of Burlin�ame For 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) Substantiaily degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantiai light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion Cess Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ImpacY Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �� ❑� � 146 CrescentAvenue ' No Impact � � � � The site currently contains a one story single family dwelling with an attached garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached one-car garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,282 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,298 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed house will have four bedrooms and total of two off-street parking spaces are required, one of which must be covered. The new detached garage will provide one covered parking spaces (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. The proposed house would cover 36.6% (2,255 SF) of the 6,148 SF lot, where 40% (2,459 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The height as measured from average top of curb will be 27'-10" where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed. The house would be set back 22'-1" from the front property line, where 15'-0" is the minimum required and 27'-10" from the rear property line, where 15' is the minimum required. Exterior materials on the proposed house include a wood shake roof, wood shingle siding along with horizontal wood siding and square wood columns at the front porch and two chimneys with stone veneer. Exterior lighting provided on the lot would need to conform to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be directed onto the site. Given the proposed setbacks, that the subject property and surrounding area is flat and that the project includes a robust landscape plan, views from surrounding properties would be minimally impacted. The neighborhood consists of a variety of styles, most of which are two-story dwellings. The subject property would be consistent with the development in this, area. While the project has the potential to generate an incremental increase in light generated on the site compared to existing conditions, the project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area since the house would be screened by other existing houses and existing and proposed vegetation and trees. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required [� Initial Study Sources 146 Crescent Avenue The City of Burlingame General P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Tit/e 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 — Electrical Code, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. Site Visit on June 6, 2016 This space intentionally left b/ank. A Initial Study Less Than Signifitant or Significant Potentiplly with Less Than Significant Mifigation Significant 146 CrescentAvenue Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact lncorporation Impaci No lmpatt 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ � � � Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Actcontract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site does not include active agricultural uses, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use and would have no effect on farmland or any property subject to a Williamson Act contract. Mitigation Measures: None Required Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. This space intentionally left b/ank. 0 ` Initial Study 146 Crescent Avenue Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Signifitant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact IncorporaYion lmpact No ImpacY 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the � � � � applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ � � � substantiaily to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ ❑ � � of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant � � � � concentrations? e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ � � substantial number of people? Discussion The proposed application is for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling with a detached garage. While this project would accommodate a larger dwelling unit for habitation, the change in emissions is insignificant. The subject property is zoned for low-density residential development and with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction; the proposed project would not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. Demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012. 0 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected wetlands, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildiife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion Less Than Signifitant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant lmpact Incorporation lmpact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 146 CrescentAvenue ' No ImpacY � � � � � � The site currently has an existing single family residence with an attached garage. The City's Reforestation Ordinance defines a protected size tree as a tree with a 48-inch circumference when measured 54-inches above adjacent grade. There is one existing 24-inch acacia tree located along the north side property line that will remain. In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with a single-family residence is required to provide a minimum of one, 24-inch box-size, non-fruit tree for every 1,000 SF of living space. The proposed landscape plan for the project will be required to comply with the reforestation requirements prior to building permit issuance by planting two additional 24-inch landscape trees. Qi7 Initial Study Sources City of Burlingame, Parks Division Memoranda, dated May 19, 2016. 146 Crescent Avenue The City of Burlingame Genera/ Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. Map of Areas of Specia/ Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016 This space intentionally left blank. 11 Initial Study Issues (ond Supporting Information Sources): 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion Less Than Significant or Significant PoYential/y with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant lmpact Inco�poration Impoct ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 146 Crescent Avenue No Impact ❑ � � � The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated February 12, 2016. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria. Those four criterion include Events, Persons, Architecture and Information Potential. The following is an excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation that was conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc.: "The house at 146 Crescent Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed locally. 146 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Constructed in 1952, the building does convey contextual significance as a single- family residence associated with the continued mid-century development of Burlingame Park, but it is not among the earliest homes in the neighborhood, nor does was that period especially influential in the development of the neighborhood. Therefore, the property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. 12 Initial Study 146 CrescentAvenue 146 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion B/2 (Persons). Research has not revealed any association with people significant in local, state or national history. Several residents and owners were engineers, but none appear to be particularly influential in the development of their industry or any other related context. The Lindquists were long-time owners and occupants of the property, but research has not revealed them to be part of a larger historic context. Research does not indicate that any former owners and occupants rose to a level of significance at the local, state, or national level such that the property would be individually eligible for listing under Criterion B/2. 146 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The architect and builder are currently unknown, so it cannot be said to be the work of a master at this time. The original portion of the house is an example of a 1950s Ranch-style residence that was prevalent during that period with its gable roof, exposed rafter tails, single level of living space, original windows and bay window in front. However, it is not a particularly outstanding or distinctive example of Ranch style architecture in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, nor is this a representative or common architectural style for the neighborhood. Therefore, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion C/3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and California Register Criterion D/4 (fnformation Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 146 Crescent Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4(Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report." Based on the above noted finding in the Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated February 12, 2016, the project would have no impact on cuftural resources. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Historica/ Resource Eva/uation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated February 12, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 13 Initial Study Issues (and Supparting lnformation SourcesJ: 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located.on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable ot adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion Signifitant or Potentially Significant lmpact � Less Than Significant with Mitigation lncorporation ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant impact � 146 CrescentAvenue No Impact �� ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � �� I The site is flat and located in a semi-urban setting which has been developed with single family residential dwellings for the last 100 years, with most of the lots in the vicinity over 6,000 SF in area. There will be less seismic exposure to people and equipment than at present, since the new single family residence will comply with current California Building Code seismic standards. The site is approximately two miles from the San Andreas Fault. The project will be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability Mitigation Measures: None Required. 14 Initial Study Sources 146 CrescentAvenue The City of Burlingame Genera/ P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps, http://gis.aba�.ca.�ov/website/liquefactionsusceptibilitv/, accessed June, 2016. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1981. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California,1972. Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated May 16, 2016. Project Plans date stamped May 12, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 15 Initial Study Issues (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 PotentiaHy with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant lmpoct lncorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 146 CrescentAvenue No Impoct � � 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 BAAQMD CEqA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and 16 Initial Study 146 Crescent Avenue Precursor Screening Level Sizes) set a screening threshoid of 56 dweiling units for any individual single family residential project. The proposed project would be comprised of one unit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD's 2010 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD Homepage, accessed May 2012). As such, lead agencies need to determine appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Lead agencies may rely on the BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures. However, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project's significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air District's 1999 Thresholds of Significance and to make determinations regarding the significance of an individual project's air quality impacts based on substantial evidence in the record for that project. For this analysis, the City of Burlingame has determined that the BAAQMD's significance thresholds in the updated May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for project operations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are the most appropriate thresholds for use to determine air quality impacts of the proposed Project. First, Burlingame has used the May 2011 BAAQMD thresholds in previous environmental analyses under CEQA and found them to be reasonable thresholds for assessing air quality impacts. In addition, these thresholds are lower than the 1999 BAAQMD thresholds, and thus use of the thresholds in the May 2011 CEQA Guidelines is more conservative. Therefore, the city concludes these thresholds are considered reasonable for use in this analysis. In this case, the proposed project includes one unit. Given that the proposed project would fall well below the 56 dwelling units threshold specified in BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for single family residential development, it is not anticipated that the project will create significant operational GHG emissions. Climate Action Plan. Burlingame's Climate Action Plan is designed to focus on near- and medium-term solutions to reduce its emissions. These program and policy recommendations were developed after careful consideration of the unique characteristics and demographics of the Burlingame community and the major sources of emissions from Burlingame's Community Greenhouse Inventory. The five major focus areas include: energy use/green building, transportation/land use, solid waste, education/outreach and municipal programs. Energy efficiency and green building programs provide the fastest and most economical means to reduce emissions. The proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Burlingame's Green Building Ordinance. Verification of compliance with Section A5.203.1.1 Tier 1(15% above Title 24) of the Green Building Ordinance or LEED Silver shall be accepted as the methods of 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. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 17 initial Study Sources 146 Crescent Avenue 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 16, 2016 This space intentionally left b/ank. � Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion Less Thon Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Signifitant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 146 CrescentAvenue No Impact ❑ � � � � � � � This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its residential nature, this project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. There are no known health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. NPDES Best Management Practices are required to ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 19 Initial Study Sources: 146 Crescent Avenue The City of Burlingame Genera/ P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, accessed June, 2016. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility P/an, San Francisco International Airport, November, 2012. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. This space intentionally left b/ank. 20 � Initial Study 146 Crescent Avenue Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Signifitant Mitigation Signifitant Issues (and Supporting information SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation Impact No lmpact 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 thatthere would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of � � � � the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alterthe existing drainage pattern ofthe � � � � site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surFace runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would � � � � exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? � � � � g) Place housing within a 100-yearflood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � I■ ►1 The proposed project is a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway. The project site is located in Flood Zone X, which is determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. The site is tied into existing water main and storm water collection distribution lines which have adequate capacity to serve the existing building. All of the surface water will be required to percolate into pervious services on-site with the remainder draining to the street. There will be an insignificant increase to the amount of impervious surface area due to the increase in the footprint of the proposed structures and driveway width. This added impervious surface will cause a slight increase in storm water runoff, but is considered insignificant given the size of the lot and the remaining pervious areas. Since the site is less than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the state-mandated water conservation program; although water conservation measures as required by the City will be met. The domestic potable water supply for Burlingame and the proposed project area is not provided by groundwater sources, but rather from surface water sources maintained by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Groundwater would not be used to supply water for the project, and no dewatering of the site is anticipated. 21 Initial Study 146 Crescent Avenue Any construction project in the City, regardiess of size, shall comply with the City NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. The project proponent will be required to ensure that all contractors implement BMP's during construction. This project is subject to the state mandated Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance; compliance will be determined by approval of a complete Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist, and landscape and irrigation design plans at time of the building permit application. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Title 26, Chapter26.16—Physica/ Design of lmprovements, Burlingame, California. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, FIRM- Panel 154 E, Map 06081C0154E, effective date October 16, 2012. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated May 20, 2016. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated May 19, 2016. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. This space intentional/y left blank. 22 initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 146 Crescent Avenue Less Than Significant or SignificanY Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Siqnificant lmpact Incorporation lmpact No Impact ❑� ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or � regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion The subject property is currently occupied by a one-story single family dwelling with an attached garage and the proposed project consists of a two-story singie family dwelling with a detached garage. The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF for lots in this area, based on the City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712. The existing lot is 6,148 square feet in area and is not part of a proposed subdivision or lot adjustment. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The project is subject to single family residential Design Review. The general plan would allow a density of eight units to the acre and the application is for one replacement unit on 0.14 acres, a density of 1.12 units per acre. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The subject property is within the Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 2, which abuts the Town of Hillsborough to the west, and which was included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences, all of which are within the City of Burlingame city limits. The 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. The proposed residence conforms to the measurable requirements of the zoning code. The Planning Commission will review the project and determine compliance with the Residential Design Review Guidelines and Special Permit criteria. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of eurlingame Genera/ P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. 23 Initial Study 146 CrescentAvenue Less Than Significant or Significant Potenfially with Less Thon Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting lnformation SourcesJ: ImpacY Incorparation Impact No Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral � � � � resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a localiy- � � � � important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local generai plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion According to the San Mateo County General P/an, 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. 24 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 12. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitiqation Significant Impact Incorporation fmpact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 146 CrescentAvenue No Impact � � � � � � The surrounding area has been occupied by single family dwellings for many years. There will be no significant increase to the ambient noise level in the area as a result of the proposed single family dwelling. 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 as well as recreational noise generated by users of the adjacent public park (Pershing Park). The new structure will be compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. Construction of the proposed dwelling will not require pile driving or other significant vibration causing construction activity. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code, which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. In addition, the site is located outside the designated noise-impacted area from San Francisco International Airport. The project does not include any permanent operational activity that would result in excessive or perceptible vibration, and the operational impact of the project on increased vibration levels would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 25 Initial Study Sources 146 Crescent Avenue The City of Burlingame Genera! Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memorandum, dated May 16, 2016. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, San Francisco Internationai Airport, November, 2012. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 26 Initial Issues (and Supporting Info�mation 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 substantiai numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� n 146 Crescent Avenue No Impacf � � � This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density residential uses. The proposed single family dwelling conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element (2015). The proposed project will not create any more housing because it replaces an existing single family dwelling on the same parcel. Since the subject property contains a single family dwelling that is currently vacant, the project would not displace existing housing or people. A new road, extension of a roadway or other infrastructure is not required for the single family dwelling and therefore the project would not induce substantial population growth. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on population and housing. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources 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. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2016. This space intentionally left b/ank. 27 Initial fssues (and Supporfing 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 pubiic facilities? Significant or Potentially Significant Impact � � � ■ ■ Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Impact � � � � � 146 Crescent Avenue No Impatt ►1 �I ►1 /1 ►� Discussion The subject property is located within the City of Burlingame jurisdiction. The proposed project includes replacing a single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling on the site, which represents an insignificant increase in the total population of the City. Therefore, existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the proposed residential unit. Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which also serves the Town of Hillsborough. Three stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road. As part of the permitting process, the Central County Fire Department would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city fire safety regulations. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional demand for fire protection services, and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities, the project's potential impact on fire protection services would be less than significant. Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department, located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project consists of replacing a single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling. Therefore, the project would not result in an increased demand for police services or require the expansion or construction of police facilities. The project's potential impact on police services would be less than significant. Students in the City of Burlingame are served by two school districts: Burlingame School District (BSD) for grades K-8 and San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for grades 9-12. The proposed project would not add any additional residential units; it is anticipated that the potential number of school-age children would not increase or only increase slightly. Therefore, any students generated by the project would be accommodated by the existing capacity of the two districts, resulting in a less than significant impact. � Initiai Study 146 Crescent Avenue The City of Burlingame is served by several parks and recreation facilities, including 13 parks and playgrounds, an aquatic center, and a golf and soccer center. Since there would be no increase in the number of residential units, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other public facilities and therefore the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memoranda, dated May 19, 2016. City of Burlingame Website, www.burlingame.org This space intentional/y left blank. � Initial Study Issues (and Supporting fnformation Sources): 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? bj 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 Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impatt ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 146 Crescent Avenue No Impact � � 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. While the subject property is directly adjacent to Pershing Park, the proposed project will have no impact on the park. The site involved in this project is not presently zoned or used for recreational purposes. Since the proposed project consists of replacing a single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other recreation facilities. Therefore, impacts to recreation would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame Genera/ P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. This space intentionally left blank. eli7 ' Initial Study a) b) c) � e) Issues (and Supporting Informatian SourcesJ: 16. 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 eitherthe 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? Substantialiy 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? 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 or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impacf Intorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � � � 146 Crescent Avenue No Impact � � � � // ►/ �I The site is on Crescent Avenue, a local north/south street that provides access to Ralston Avenue, which connects to EI Camino Real, a regional arterial. This project will not create an increase in the traffic generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any temporary incremental increase to traffic or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities. The new dwelling will have four bedrooms. Two parking spaces are required on site, one of which must be covered. Each of the covered spaces are required to be at least 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep. The new detached garage will provide one code complying covered parking spaces and one uncovered space wil) be provided in the driveway. The proposed project meets the off-street parking requirement established in the zoning code. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Tit/e 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, San Francisco International Airport, November, 2012. Project plans date stamped May 12, 2015. 31 Issues (and Supportinq Information 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 federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion Significant or Less Than Potentially Significant with Significant Mitigation Impatt lncorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Impact No lmpact ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The subject property is currently occupied by a single family dwelling. Water is provided to the subject property by an existing 12-inch cast iron pipe along Crescent Avenue. The proposed residence will be connected to an existing 8-inch PVC sewer line along Crescent Avenue. To prevent flooding a backflow prevention device is required to be installed. All of the surface water will be required to percolate on-site into pervious areas then drain to Burlingame Creek. The Engineering Division notes that no additional storm water runoff is allowed from the post-construction project site. The City Engineer has indicated that there is adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage systems to accommodate the new house. Therefore, the project's impact to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant. The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems. All new utility connections to serve the site and that are affected by the development will be installed to meet current code standards; sewer laterals from the main on the site to serve the new structure will be checked and replaced if necessary. The current solid waste service provider is Recology, which hauls waste collected in Burlingame to the San Carlos Transfer Station and the Recyclery of San Mateo County for sorting then disposal at Ox Mountain Landfill. Demand for solid waste disposal services generated by the project could be adequately served by 32 � Initial Study 146 Crescent Avenue existing capacity at the transfer station and landfill and the project would comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractor would be required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream and transport and recycle the construction waste separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid waste generated during operation of the project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame Genera! Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division - Water, Sewer and Storm Drain Maps; accessed July 7, 2016. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memoranda dated May 20, 2016. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated May 19, 2016. Recology San Mateo County, www.recolo�vsanmateocountv.com, site accessed July 7, 2016. Project Plans date stamped May 12, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 33 Initial Study Significant or Potentially Significant Issues (and Supporting lnformation SourcesJ: Impact 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the � quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually � limited, but cumulative considerable? ("Cumulative considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will � cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion 146 Crescent Avenue � Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigotion Significant Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact �� 1 /� 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 particular to the project or its site. No project-specific significant effects particular to the project or its site were identified. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project will not have significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. This space intentionally left blank. 34 -_ State of Califomia—The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE,; AND OBJECT RECORD - Page 7 of 14 *NRHP Status Code 6Z *Resource Name or # 146 Crescent Avenue B1. Historic name: 146 Crescent Avenue B2. Common name: 146 Crescent Avenue 63. Original Use: Sinqle-Familv Residence B4. Present use: Sinqle-Familv Residence *65. Architectural Style: Ranch *66. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Six building permits were located at the Burlingame Building Department, including the permit for new construction in 1952 (Permit #H-223). In 1968, a permit was issued for termite and wood rot repairs to doors jambs (Permit #R-371). In 1977, a large addition was designed for the rear of the house, during which they removed rear walls and windows of the existing building. The architecYs name was not legible. The house was previously approximated to be 700 sf (current square footage is 1,530). The construction was completed in 1979 (Permit #Y-60). In 1978, a permit issued for construction of a deck at the rear, approximately 20'x22'. The rear addition permit was reissued in 1979, and in 1983, there was a permit for the installation of a solar passive water heater system on the roof (Permit #6469). Windows at the primary and west facades were replaced at an unknown date. The front windows appear to have been all wood in the historic photograph from 1969 but were replaced with the vinyl windows by the time a photo was taken in 1974 (See Figure 3). *B7. Moved? �No �Yes �Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: No 69a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Theme Residential Architecture Area Burlinqame Park Period of Significance N/A Property Type Residential Applicable Criteria N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Historic Conte�: Citv of Burlin4ame The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given by Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (purchased 1848) and William C. Ralston (purchased 1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame's death in 1870, the land reverted to Ralston and eventually to Ralston's business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon's trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small-scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. (See Continuation Sheet) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: See Page 11 B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Cassie Rogg, Page & Turnbull, Inc. "`Date of Evaluation: March 21, 2016 (This space reserved for official comments.) Source: San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2016. Property outlined in red. North is right. Modified by Page & Turnbull. ��f\ syt �� 6 � L- � � L ,�m . � �' � � _ � � � � o � � � O O� O • e ,: .p � „ O °� � ' Op ,� � __��,.,, — y,„ O $ � � � � O � ,� „ „ � w i.4..,• �'�—r = • • � IcIIMfM�YL' K�qy, L � !) 10 I tS y� Ol.AMKT I � � x� O) ' � � � � �� 0� �a �isoo � NEWCANOS �� ': �` 5`��,<� „ O O O �� O O � tl 0 • O GQ,F, a n O. e . Q n,� ^ II K i L Y nw . n t0 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Page 8 of 14 Resource Name or # 146 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 12, 2016 0 Continuation ❑ Update B10. Significance (cont'd): During this time, EI Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village's population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910 annexed the north adjacent town of Easton. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame's population had increased to 4,107. Burlinqame Park Neiqhborhood The house at 146 Crescent Avenue was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. The Rancho was inherited by Joseph Henry Poett, sold to Anson Burlingame in 1866, and sold again to William C. Ralston after Burlingame's death. Ralston began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a pian for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Hall's early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands. Newlands commissioned Hall's cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan "centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree-lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents.°' The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The residential neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911.z Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded by County Road to the north; Burlingame Park, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the east; Pepper Avenue to the south; and Bellevue Avenue to the west. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of about fifty years. Modest residences were constructed within the subdivision in the early years. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s and the majority of the residences were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. Thus, 146 Crescent was among the last properties constructed in the neighborhood, since by 1949, nearly all of the approximately 250 lots in Burlingame Park were developed (See Sanborn map, Figure 1). Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth century building boom, to the present day. Most of the homes in the neighborhood are some variation of Craftsman or revival styles (often altered) and therefore the house at 146 Crescent Avenue is an atypical residential type. 146 Crescent Avenue Construction of 146 Crescent Avenue was completed in June 1952.3 The original architect and contractor are unknown. Sixteen years after construction, a permit was issued for wood rot repair of the door jambs. In 1977 a permit was issued for substantial new construction, removing the rear fagade's windows and doors and adding nearly twice as much useable area to the interior space. This addition was completed in 1979. A permit was also issued during the construction period to add a large deck at the rear of the house but this seems to not have been built, based on available photographs and records. Based on physical observation and historic photographs, the building appears to have undergone several other alterations including replacement of wood windows at the primary fa�ade. The two vinyl windows on the west fagade were appear to have been replaced, and the aluminum windows were likely inserted around the time of the addition. Also, judging from the photos, the existence of the fence on the east side would have prevented there being enough room for a full driveway there but the side alley was paved at an unknown point. Most likely, the rear garage was never used as a drive-up garage. Owner and Occupant History Burlingame city directories list William A. and Pearl Nolte as the first occupants of 146 Crescent Avenue from 1956-61. However, the first owners were John C. and Annie Eilers (1952 to around 1955), though the house appears to have sat vacant in its first few years of existence. The first resident, William A. Nolte, was a clerk at the Santa Clara City Fire Department who passed away in 1960 4 In 1961, Pearl Nolte moved out. The owner of the property is unknown until 1965, though there is record of an A.M. and Sue ' Gray Brechin, Imperia/ San Francisco (Berkeley, CA: University of Califomia Press, 1999), 94. z Diane Condon-Wirgler, "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park," (Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004). 3 Building Permit #H-223. The San Mateo County Assessor lists the construction date as 1953. 4 Burlingame City Directories DPR 523L Page 9 of 14 Resource Name or # 146 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 12, 2016 0 Continuation ❑ Update Moeller living there for at least a year beginning in 1963. A. Moeller was an engineer at Guy F. Atkinson, a local construction firm. In 1965 the property was purchased by Richard H. and Johnnie Bradley. Richard was an engineer at Southern Pacific Company. He and his wife lived at 146 Crescent until 1970 at which point they rented the property to Betty and Theresa Toth (1968) and Susan E. and Donald R. Dahlgren, a manager at MacGregor Sporting Goods (1971-72). The house then sat vacant for the following year after which it was purchased by Stanley J. E. Lindquist, an Air Corps veteran, and his wife F. Lindquist. Stanley was in the air force and worked as a mechanic and repairman of automobiles, at least in his early twenties.5 No further information was discovered about the Lindquists or former owners of the property. The Lindquists lived at 146 Crescent Avenue from 1974 through 2014. In 2014, they created the Lindquist trust under Robert E. Lindquist and Ray S. Lingdquist. Ray Lindquist held it until February 2016, though it does not appear he inhabited the subject property. In February of 2016, Mr. Lindquist sold the family estate to Raymond W.M. Wong, David Hong Yue Chan, Johnson Lin, Allen Tsz Tat Lee and Louis Changio. At the time this report was written, 146 Crescent Avenue was vacant. 1952 —1953 No listin of 146 Crescent 1954 —1955 Vacant 1956 —1961 William A. and Pearl Nolte 1963 A.M. and Sue Moeller 1965 —1970 Richard H. and Johnnie Br 1968 Bett and Teresa Toth" 1971 —1972 Donald R. and Susan E. D 1973 —1974 Vacant 1975 - 2014 F. Lind uist, S.J.E. Lind u *Burlingame Historical Society property cards list ownersf Burlingame City Directories Clerk at Santa Clara Ci Fire De artme En ineer at Gu F. Atkinson En ineer at Southern Pacific Com an Listed as residents on ermit R-371 n Mana er at MacGre or S ortin Goods Stanle Air co s vet, mechanic this period, but corresponding records were not found in Evaluation (Sianificancel: The house at 146 Crescent Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed locally. 146 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Constructed in 1952, the building does convey contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the continued mid-century development of Burlingame Park, but it is not among the earliest homes in the neighborhood, nor does was that period especially influential in the development of the neighborhood. Therefore, the property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. 146 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion B/2 (Persons). Research has not revealed any association with people significant in local, state or national history. Several residents 5 Ancestry.com: Stanley J. E. Lindquist in the US World War II Army Enlistment Records, 1941. DPR 523L The following table outlines the ownership and occupancy history of 146 Crescent Avenue, compiled from Burlingame city directories, San Mateo County Assessor records, property ownership cards, and other available resources: and owners were engineers, but none appear to be particularly influential in the development of their industry or any other related context. The Lindquists were long-time owners and occupants of the property, but research has not revealed them to be part of a larger historic context. Research does not indicate that any former owners and occupants rose to a level of significance at the local, state, or national level such that the property would be individually eligible for listing under Criterion B/2. 146 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or Califomia Registers under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The architect and builder are currently unknown, so it cannot be said to be the work of a master at this time. The original portion of the house is an example of a 1950s Ranch-style residence that was prevalent during that period with its gable roof, exposed rafter tails, single level of living space, original windows and bay window in front. However, it is not a particularly outstanding or distinctive example of Ranch style architecture in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, nor is this a representative or common architectural style for the neighborhood. Therefore, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion C/3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 146 Crescent Avenue for eligibility under Califomia Register Criterion 4(Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. Evaluation Qntearitv): The house at 146 Crescent Avenue has undergone extensive alterations, including the substitution of vinyl frame windows for original wood frame windows and the major rear addition made to the house in 1979. There was a permit issued for a rear deck but no visible proof of its existence, except for the small wood deck leading to a secondary entrance at the rear fa�ade. Though the original portion of the house is still discernible and conveys some of the original design intent, alterations have compromised the original massing and detailing. Overall, the building does not retain integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling, given the size and visibility of the 1979 rear addition and its intrusion on the original roofline. It continues to be used as a single-family residence within a universally residential neighborhood, and has not been moved. The site's landscaping has most likely changed over the property's history, but the landscaped front, side and back yards remain intact overall. A chain link fence was added on the eastem edge of the property after the house's construction, compromising a portion of its views and access on that side. The encroachment of the house on the west side limits access to that fagade. However, the density of the houses and general design characteristics within Burlingame Park remain. Therefore, the building retains integrity of setting, association, and location. For these reasons, the building does not retain historic integrity. Conclusion The Ranch-style residence at 146 Crescent Avenue was constructed in 1952, one of the last additions to this residential subdivision of Burlingame Park. The property underwent several alterations including a large rear addition and window replacements. No significant events are associated with the property, nor is it considered to be an outstanding example of Ranch style architecture, especially in the surrounding area. The Lindquists were long-time owners and occupants; however, neither they, nor any other owners or occupants, appear to be have contributed to history in a significant way. As such, the Califomia Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of "6Z" has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was "found ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or local designation through survey evaluation."6 6 California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technica/ Assistance Bulletin #8: User's Guide to the Califomia Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource /nventory Directory, Sacramento, November 2004. DPR 523L *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 12, 2016 � Continuation ❑ Update *B12. References: Ancestry.com: Stanley J.E. Lindquist in the US World War II Army Enlistment Records,1941. Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. Building Permit Records, 146 Crescent Avenue, Burlingame, CA Burlingame City Directories. California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User's Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory, Sacramento, November 2004. Carey & Company. "Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan." February 19, 2008. Condon-Wirgler, Diane. "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park." Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004. Diane Condon Wirgler, "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park," (Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004). Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007. Gray Brechin, Imperial San Francisco (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), 94. McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. "Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame." July 26, 1982. Property Ownership Cards, Burlingame Historical Society. Real Estate Listings for 146 Crescent Avenue, February 2016. San Mateo County Assessor Grantor-Grantee Index. San Mateo Times and Daily New Leader. San Francisco Chronicle. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1949. United States Federal Census records: 1950. DPR 523L Page 11 of 14 Resource Name or # 146 Crescent Avenue "`Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 12, 2016 O Continuation ❑ Update State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET T�inomia� Page 12 of 14 Resource Name or # 146 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 12, 2016 � Continuation ❑ Update Historic Maps and Photographs: � �J� +r'T•� '-� - ++ _ ` :S ��Ii�� 'I�CI �5 �' �t. � - �-'i'� -:� � � - _ ___ _ � - ,��✓ ,� �� ) •-._ �' s;, �' ' - -__ 22 -e�� i�• � f' :.•, � -.; ; M�.tt�•-•. ---- �a e' "; "..' ; � � � i L ; . `'�'"�-- a• . , - - — --- --�+: .+ . � ., . � 1r , ;:'� �'" ':..K � �. --.,4,.w ' ;k •• •. • ...... . . :y. � .. r ��i`. ,•. �:.., ' '_a��i �r ;r,�.'�'� i , _s.�� :+ ...vJ._�; • , . v . � ^ � f , q,� � �� 1 � . ti.' f i � In�fl' ; ��t--�r...M�c . � ' ' ) � 3 ' i . � M °._ ,: --J ; � c- i : --- r- -- �. ; , ,�, . ._ . ,,. ,.; , � ' � ' �' ^�e' � '� � � ' � , 1 � 3• �r , �~` � IlO: .�- . , '' .;t.� ', ' � ' e-. ' r' ' : � . ' f � � : � • ' 1 � � � . ..��-�. ,'r' , , . �.-� � ; 1',�.'-,' .rl� i.� �f . � .) I T� • ; "� ..:4' �.. ' I 'F.,��. 1', .i � �, �-"' -'y- i �r'!-j-�� L, r I �, 4 + Y ' � �I i � .�f,J,. - '�„� ~�'�� #"v • --- ti _. � � Ze I i t :.�� i �. ;,,� ; __ �,_ �=� ; �-:� �—~— . Y�� I � �` H�� i�t L � �..I i .. ~. l� ' .. ,�� ,'�i _—i 1�� . .P` fr � - • .. . , "-,�..-_ _ ' - •' i��'�.a}•. . L ,.1• ' `' !, �f ,1 �.� 1 �. _ �' � �� • {i `�` � , �` 1•.T � + � •-...f:- .:.? ly ' ;' u_; ' i �I'�}'��a.�.�� 17 .�; ,` 1. ` 'r .� - , i.; ' ; � a ,'?, �' : •� ' �' � � 1 �e- � ;yi, � -- - --. � }� ��R ' '�'� 'n y . � `•=e-.' ' < __ • � ' J�� i ' ✓� r"'f . r- �a�� \ ' ` �, - .�, , k'� ]� � ' s� � f I . j � ° �� '+ _ - f i � .e- : � �..-, I • +' � ra . -� r ' � � : �, ,.r� i � -� . � : . ,� �.' ...;' '1_ : -� i«� ii I � ;' �'�1 � :�' • � r"�"'' - . --.�4 �_� ; .r +--a t-�/:i �.'.� �;: �i' • ��i'�n'" �f (��l_-•a f ' y4 .. '. �- ..,a� � i i � �► � �. � '� � ' , �''. :� ly ' . - �_ ..' - • �'�'� - .. '�_ . � � �=- :.��-L' -y�-_ ��' . .s � ; � "., i �. ... . ts-.. � . J"' . /!' ,R' y I`� '' ` � —. � �� .-�.�N •� .. .. .__..�-... .... . ., . . �rw ;� . � � ��y � �•�s .. a.�.r � - _n-�. t' . � , � • ,.� '� � 1 1� ! r� ( • ��1 �� ?�� •fZ'� _, �i�,�� ,, i_I ' . �, t ;`�� i � n, _� � .� �1 f � �• . - - !� �, : , r' . . j , t.� - '� ( - � i _ �r. f ' � �- L � I ra-�—, . � : �� . I '�. '.�k� -Tl Y - i.�s , 1 � p �� '"�f _ � �.�. `- � : • +t-:tl 4_ � G� �,- r� �l,, � • �!f a :� � �. � _ ' - -�- �r�=-s•� .. ,; �y�'Y ; .. �' i • � t,� ' ' �. � '° �%r` �...._r—�---� _y' u! 'LI `-��'�--� �t� ( x J�L l� � ( I �;�r �� d: . �-- ._ . . , � �� .� �.. _. . . ..� _�� "�'�- - �..s-• w '-•� �..`, -rr-- �.w x��.x � � � ' . : _ . . �..+ . ,,,,,_. ...._... .� .....,.. ...._..,................._..... ....,. _..--'....._...��: _ ..... '.... ...._.....--- •---•--•_`__..-"--' �- � `[rM1M1N �I. . , if Figure 1 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of the subject block with the approximate present location of 146 Crescent Avenue shown in red; north is to the right; edited by author. Source: San Francisco Public Library Digital Sanborn Map Collection. DPR 523L c State of-Califomia —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARK$ AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomia� ` ' " ' Page 13 of 14 Resource Name or # 146 Crescent Avenue "Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 12, 2016 � Continuation ❑ Update . r ,. , � . . x ml3�a :. , < �o- .. "` w_ � �� _ � � � � � . � � , _ _ _'.> . .... ; �.,. �. � � ��- . Figure 2 Photographs of 146 Crescent Avenue from 1955 (top) and 1962 (bottom). Alterations in front landscaping is apparent. DPR 523L �� -. �'�� '# ' 8� -�="��', _ . _ �n .. r `��' _ State of California—The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Page 14 of 14 �Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. ,it �: �. ; � �'., �= �� . . Source: Burlingame Historical Society. , .��,: , .. :.. _ �. ;_ � � �:� s . �1�-.�-��«�'�.��`-�� ' `�w:��;.�l�;:`�3�+� t, '�' . ,. :y �� `l� Primary # HRI # Trinomial Resource Name or # 146 Crescent Avenue *Date February 12, 2016 � Continuation ❑ Update + ,i' r_ �'' a-� . f � L . �� : �` � ry t . � ±�!"' . a_ a. , ,�� `,.,.� _ . ,ii�. .��_. _ . .,.. _ .. �...zww►.. - '�" � . �.. _ � ,v -.; �i _ - __ ,� - .. , � � . � - '.' . . �,,. '.. _ - ._.. -a�i„n�,;i(e_r, � �' , Figure 3 Photographs of 146 Crescent Avenue from 1969 (top) and 1974 (bottom). P�imary fagade windows appear to be wood frame in 7969 but replaced with vinyl sash by 1974. Source: Burlingame Historical Society. DPR 523L .