The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About117 Costa Rica Avenue - Environmental Document• � IIII � � 4� �'•4 • Re�^�d0` 9 Warren Slocum Chief Elections Officer 8� Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder POSTING CONFIRMATION LETTER Date: � - � �,), ��) 555 Couny Center Redwood City, CA 94063-1665 web www.smcare.org Subject: Return of Environmental Documents Filed and Posted for 30 day. Section 21092.3 TO: � 1'1��-I /; � I/ I v,� I 1 The attached Document(s) file Number J �,l y �,�-% was received, filed and a copy posted with the County Clerk on �'� `� �� n and remained posted for thirty calendar days. Warren Slocum Assessor-County Clerk Recorder San Mateo County C �" ' County Clerk t�t �,'� � i `�v fC �.1 JU! 0 � 2010 ary or t��hu��;c�,c�ne PIANNING DcPT, Assessor Clerk Recorder phone 650.363.4500 fax 650.363.1903 phone 650.363.4712 fax 650.363.4843 phone 650.3h3.4713 fax 650.599.7386 emoil assessor@smcore.org email clerk@smcore.org email recorder@smcare.org State of California—The Resources Agency ' DEPARTMENTOF FISHAND GAME ' 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY LEADAGENCY C ; � 7u � I �v� _ u�,,,� COUNTY/STATEAGENCYOFFILI G � in^ �'^ l � �/� {� � � (J PROJECTTITLE � ^ �.., ; I � J j 1 '�1 � (�5�� "�,\CU �� ' I V S V �`i � � � PROJECTAPPLICANT NAME � i � � ` ll � ' /� �-1 � r �Local Public Agency ❑ School District ❑ Other Special District CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ❑ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) �Mitigated/Negative Declaration (ND)(MND) ❑ Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) ❑ Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs (CRP) �CountyAdministrative Fee ❑ Project that is exempt from fees ❑ Notice of Exemption ❑ DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) ❑ Other PAYMENT METHOD: ,�,,,�� ❑ Cash ❑ Credit ly' Check ❑ Other SIGNATURE � WHITE-PROJECTAPPLICANT YELLOW-DFG;ASB PINK-LEADAGENCY RECEIPT# 3 g � 3 —, � STATE CLEARING HOUSE # (�fapplicab�e) � -2,�—/ o ) � �1�'I (f � �i ❑ State Agency ❑ Private $2,792.25 $ $2,010.25 $ �.cyib. �� $850.00 $ $949.50 $ �50.00 $ `� v - $ TOTAL RECEIVED $ � � � a: � � IITLE �. %in . GOLDENROD-COUNNCLERK FG753.5a�Rev11109) ' ' NOTICE OF DETERMINATION l ��'Z� TO: ❑ � SUB]ECT: OfFice of Planning and Research FROM: CITY OF BURLINGAME P.O Box 3044 Community Development Dept. Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Planning Division � � � � � 501 Primrose Road SAhI hAA'{°E(� COUNTY Burlingame, CA 94010 County Clerk County of San Mateo MAX- 2 5 2010 401 County Center, Si�h Floor Redwood City, California 94063 y�p{� !V SLQC��lM, �un lerk 1't.t.k�r:�. Filing of Notice of Determination � e ion 152 of the Public Resources Code. ND-554-P — 117 Costa Rica Avenue — New Single Family Dwellinq Project Title __ William Meeker (650L558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 117 Costa Rica Avenue, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The proposal is to demolish the existing one-story house and to construct a new two story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 117 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house would cover 29% (2,419 SF) of the 8,220 SF lot, where 40% (3,288 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,944 SF (0.48 FAR) where 4,130 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There is also a 631 SF basement area proposed that is exempt from the floor area ratio calculation. There would be one covered detached parking space provided for this four bedroom house. The applicant has applied for Design Review and Special Permit for a basement with a ceiling height greater than 6'-0", for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is subject to CEQA because on September 25, 2009, the City of Burlingame Planning Division received documentation from a Burlingame citizen that indicated that the entire subdivision within which this property is located .(Burlingame Park No. 2) 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 the building retains sufficient historic integrity to be . considered a contributing resource to a potential historic district, but it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above-described project on May 10, 2010 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project [❑will � will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. � A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: City of BurlinQame, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010. 3. Mitigation measures [❑were � were not] made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [❑was �was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings (� were ❑ were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final EIR or Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Burlinqame, Communiry Development Department, Planninq Division, 501 Primrose Road, Burlinqame, CA 94010. � � � ' ,; j �j i �'�- � �'r ��✓ - William Meeker, Community Deve�fop�nEnt Director Date CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 �� BURLINGAME `- j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division PH:(650)558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Interested Individuals From: Citv of Burlinqame County Clerk of San Mateo Community Development Department Planninq Division 501 Primrose Road Burlinqame, CA 94010 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (ND-554-P) Project Title: 117 Costa Rica Avenue, New Single Family Dwelling Project Location: 117 Costa Rica Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The proposal is to demolish the existing one-story house and to construct a new two story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 117 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house would cover 29% (2,419 SF) of the 8,220 SF lot, where 40% (3,288 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,944 SF (0.48 FAR) where 4,130 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There is also a 631 SF basement area proposed that is exempt from the floor area ratio calculation. There would be one covered detached parking space provided for this four bedroom house. The applicant has applied for Design Review and Special Permit for a basement with a ceiling height greater than 6'-0", for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is subject to CEQA because on September 25, 2009, the City of Burlingame Planning Division received documentation from a Burlingame citizen that indicated that the entire subdivision within which this property is located (Burlingame Park No. 2) 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 the building retains sufficient historic integrity to be considered a contributing resource to a potential historic district, but it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby given of the City's intent to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A negative declaration is prepared for a project when the initial study has identified no potentially significant effect on the environment, and there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of an Initial Study, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has prepared a Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010. As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on April 19, 2010. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on Mav 10, 2010. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination set forth in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing to: City of Burlingame Community Development Department — Planning Division. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period described above. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed Design Review and Special Permit for a basement with a ceiling height greater than 6', for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 117 Costa Rica Avenue, and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been tentatively scheduled for Mav 10, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: April 19, 2010 INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2 3 � 5 0 r� Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: R-1 117 Costa Rica Avenue, New Single Family Dwelling to replace existing single family home on the site City of Burlingame, Planning Department 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 William Meeker, Community Development Director (650) 558-7250 117 Costa Rica Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 Jolanda Breazeale 505 Middlesex Road Belmont, CA 94002 Low-Density Residential APN: 028-316-090 8. Description of the Project: The proposal is to demolish the existing single-story house and to construct a new two story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 117 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house would cover 29% (2,418 SF) of the 8,220 SF lot, where 40% (3,288 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house and garage would have a total floor area of 3,944 SF (0.48 FAR) where 4,130 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There is also a 631 SF basement area proposed that is exempt from the floor area ratio calculation. There would be one covered detached parking space provided for this four bedroom house. The applicant has applied for Design Review and Special Permit for a basement with a ceiling height greater than 6'-0", for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is subject to CEQA because on September 25, 2009, the Ciry of Burlingame Planning Division received documentation from a Burlingame citizen that indicated that the entire subdivision within which this property is located (Burlingame Park No. 2) 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 forthe existing house on the property, and it has been determined that the building retains sufficient historic integrity to be considered a contributing resource to a potential historic district, but it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the Burlingame Park No. 2 Subdivision, in the southern portion of Burlingame west of EI Camino Real. The original house on the parcel (built in 1921) and the garage remain on the property today. All of the properties in this subdivision, as well as neighboring subdivisions were included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. This area is made up entirely of single family residential properties. The Town of Hillsborough lies two blocks to the west of the subject property and the Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies two blocks to the east of the subject property. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: There are no permits required from other public agencies. However, San Mateo County is a responsible agency. A building permit is required from the Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division. 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. Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Mineral Resources X Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recreation Materials Hydrology & Water Noise Agricultural Resources Quality Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the 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 X 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 impacY' 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 (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, and (2) 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. �� , � '1 � Wi I m Meeker, Community Development Director Da e Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially LessThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 1,2 X 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 2 X or natural community conservation plan? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, 1,3 X 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, 3 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 3 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial 5,6,7 X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated 5,6,7 X 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? 5,6,7 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 5,6,7 X liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 6 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 5 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, 5,6 7 X 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- 5,6 X 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the 5 X use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? �c� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially LessThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,15 X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 1 X interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 1,15 X site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 1,15, X site or area, including through the alteration of the 19 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 1,15, X the capacity of existing or planned storm water 19 drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of poiluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,4,15, X 19 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as 8 X 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 8 X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 1 X loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,6 X 5. 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 1,9 X applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 1,9 X existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of 1,9 X 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)? � Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,9 X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 1,9 X number of people? 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in 1,15 X 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 15 X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including 1,13 X 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 14, 15, X feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous 16 intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 14,16, X 18 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,14 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1,4 X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 1,11 X 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 or adverse effect on any riparian 1,11 X habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 1,11 X protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 1,11 X native or resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? -5- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2 X protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 1,11 X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1 X resource that wouid be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important 1 X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,10 X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,2,12 X 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 1,12 X 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 12 X 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 1, 12, X or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 13 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, 1 X 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 1,10 X an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 1 X loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? � Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels 1,2 X 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 1,2 X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise 1 X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2 X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 1,2 X 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, 1 X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1,18 X b) Police protection? 1 X c) Schools? 1 X d) Parks? 1 X e) Other public facilities? 1 X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1,15, X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 19 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 1,15, X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of 19 existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm 1,15, X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing 19 facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 1,15, X project from existing entitlements and resources, or 19 are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,15, X treatment provider which serves or may serve the 19 project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projecYs projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? -7- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 1,15 X capacity to accommodate the projecYs solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 1,15 X regulations related to solid waste? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, 1 X but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1,2, X quality of the site and its surroundings? 14,20 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare 1,4 X which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Create a substantial adverse change in the 1,4, 20 X significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,4 X significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1,4 X resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 1,4 X outside of formal cemeteries? 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing 1,4 X 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 1,4 X require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or 1 X 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 1 X Williamson Act contract? � Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially LessThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Involve other changes in the existing environment 1 X which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 1,20 X 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 1 X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will 1 X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? � Initial Study Summary 1117 Costa Rica Avenue 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2009 edition. 3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 2002. 4 2000 Census 5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheef 3, 1:125,000, 1981. 6 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. 7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Pofential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. 8 Map ofApproximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, September 16, 1981 9 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacfs of Projects and Plans, December, 1995 10 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 1997 11 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game 12 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998 13 San Mateo Counfy Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, December, 1994 14 Project plans date stamped February 24, 2010 15 City of Burlingame, Engineering Memos dated May 21, 2009 and November 30, 2009 16 City of Burlingame, Building Department Memos dated November 30, 2009 and February 18, 2010 17 City of Burlingame, Arborist Memos dated May 6, 2009 and December 9, 2009 18 City of Burlingame, Fire Department Memo dated November 30, 2009 19 City of Burlingame, NPDES Memo dated November 30, 2009 20 117 Costa Rica Avenue Historic Resource Analysis, prepared by Gretchen Hilyard, Page & Turnbull, Inc. -10- Initial Study Summary 1117 Cosfa Rica Avenue Land use and Planning Summary: No Impacf. The subject property is currently occupied by a one-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF for lots in this area, based on City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712, and this lot is 8,220 square feet in area. 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 8 units to the acres and the application is for one replacement unit on 0.2 acres, a density of 5 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 residence conforms to all measurable requirements of the zoning code; however a Special Permit is required for a basement with a ceiling height greater than 6'-0" (8'-0" proposed). The Planning Commission will review the project and determine compliance with Design Review criteria. Population and Housing Summary: No Impact. This site and the surrounding area are planned for low- density residential uses. The proposed redevelopment of an existing single family dwelling to replace an existing residence on the site conforms to the Ciry of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element. The proposed project will not create any more housing because it is replacing an existing single family dwelling on the same parcel. Geologic Summary: No lmpact. The site is flat and located in a semi-urban setting which has been developed with single family residential dwellings for the last 100 years, with most of the lots in vicinity over 6,000 SF in area. There will be less seismic exposure to people and equipment than at present, since the 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, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability. Water Summary: No lmpact. This is a redevelopment project to replace an existing residence on a currently occupied parcel. The subject property is not adjacent to a watennray. The project site is located in Flood Zone B, which is outside the 100-year flood zone. The site is tied into existing water main and storm water collection distribution lines which have adequate capacity to serve the existing building. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street. There will be an insignificant increase to the amount of impervious surface area due to the increase in the driveway width and length. This added impervious surtace 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. Air Quality Summary: No Impact. The proposed application is for a new single family dwelling to replace an existing residence on an existing developed site. While this project will accommodate a larger dwelling unit for habitation, the change in emissions is insignificant. The subject property is zoned for low-density residential development and with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction; the proposed project will not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. Demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Qualiry Management District. Transportation/Circulation Summary: No Impacf. The site is on Costa Rica Avenue, a local street that provides access to Barroilhet 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 ortrip generation produced -11- Initial Study Summary 1117 Costa Rica Avenue by the temporary construction activities. The proposed single-family dwelling meets the on-site parking requirement established in the zoning code. Biological Resources Summary: No Impacf. The site currently contains an existing single family residence and detached garage. There are no existing protected size landscape trees on the property. In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with a single-family residence is required to provide a minimum of one, 24-inch box-size minimum, non-fruit tree, for every 1,000 SF of living space. The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements. The landscape plan indicates that the following trees will be planted in 24" box size: one Arbutus Marina, one Chinese Elm, one Weeping Cherry, one Birch, one Fruitless Olive and one Queen Palm. Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: No Impact. All gas and electric services are in place for service to the homes in this area, with capacity to handle the redevelopment of an existing single-family residence proposed with the current application. It is likely that there will be no incremental increase to the use of energy because the new residence will comply with current Title 24 requirements, which requires energy efficient construction. Hazards Summary: No Impacf. 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 Ciry 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. Noise Summary: No Impact. The site has been occupied by a single family dwelling for many years. With the development of a new single family dwelling there will be no increase to the noise in the area. The noise in the area will be general residential noise such as vehicles coming to and from the house, sounds from the residents when using the backyard and noises from putting out garbage cans. The new structure will be compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. 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. Public Services Summary: No Impact. The project is not expected to have a significant impact on the provisions of other public services, since this is an urbanized area with adequately sized existing public facilities in place. All existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the proposed use. Utilities and Service Systems Summary: No Impact. The subject property contains an existing single family dwelling and therefore has all necessary utilities on-site. To prevent wastewater from contaminating the water supply, a backflow prevention device is required to be installed as per Ordinance Number 1710, effective June 18, 2003. The current solid waste service provider is Allied Waste, which sends solid waste collected in Burlingame to Ox Mountain Landfill. Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractor will be required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream by transporting the construction waste separately. Solid waste generated during operation of the project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial. The Ciry of Burlingame has also adopted an ordinance requiring recycling of construction waste and demolition debris. The ordinance requires that 60 percent of the total waste tonnage generated from project construction shall be diverted from the waste stream. The applicant is required to complete a Recycling and Waste Reduction -12- Initial Study Summary 1117 Costa Rica Avenue Form to be reviewed and approved by the Chief Building Official. It is required that records shall be kept and submitted to the Ciry prior to the final inspection of the project. Aesthetics Summary: No /mpact. The site currently contains a small one-story singie family dwelling, and the proposed larger, two-story house may have a visual impact on the existing streetscape. The project is subject to residential Design Review to be reviewed and approved bythe Planning Commission. The proposed house will be cover 29% of the lot and will be 3,944 SF in area. The height as measured from average top of curb, will be 28'-2" and will be setback 28'-10" from the street. The exterior material will be Spanish texture stucco, with a wood shutters and wrought iron detailing, and a terra cotta barrel tile roof. The detached two-car garage will have a stone faCade exterior and a terra cotta barrel tile roof. The windows will be wood framed with wood trim. Exterior lighting provided on the lot will be required to conform to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be directed onto the site. With the proposed building placement and landscape plan, views from surrounding properties will be minimally impacted. The most obvious visual change will be from Costa Rica Avenue where the existing house will be replaced with a two-story facade. The neighborhood consists of a variety of styles, most of which are two-story dwellings. The subject property will be consistent with the development in this area. Cultural Resources Summary: Less Than Significant Impacf. The existing one-story house on the property was built in 1921. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame Citizen on September 25, 2009, it was indicated that the entire subdivision within which this property is located (Burlingame Park No. 2) 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 Resource Evaluation was conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc. that concluded that based upon the State of California Resource Agency's four Criterion for a Historical Resource, the residence at 117 Costa Rica Avenue retains sufficient historic integrity to be considered a contributing resource to a potential historic district, but it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Those four criterion include: Events for local significance as a resource; Persons as a resource associated with the lives of persons important to local history; Architecture that "embodies the distinctive characteristics of a time and period"; and Information Potential. The following is an excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation that was conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc.: "117 Costa Rica Avenue was constructed by an unknown architect/builder in 1921. The building was constructed in Burlingame Park neighborhood during a residential building boom in the 1920s. The Ciry of Burlingame was first developed in the mid- to late-nineteenth century by wealthy San Franciscans desiring large estates in close proximity to the City. As the population grew, the need for services arose and a small town emerged in the late nineteenth century (around Burlingame Avenue, laid out in circa 1875, as well as Burlingame Square and Railroad Station, constructed in 1894). After the 1906 Earthquake and Fire, even more residents fled San Francisco, seeking refuge from the decimated city. Burlingame flourished afterthe Earthquake and Fire, and many residences and businesses, such as the Bank of Burlingame (1907-1908), were constructed at this time. In 1908, the town was officially incorporated. By 1920, the population increased to 4,107 and a residential building boom began that continued through the 1930s. (See Continuation Sheet) 117 Costa Rica Avenue was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, which was one of three subdivisions, including Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park, laid out on lands formerly in the western section of the San Mateo Rancho, which was inherited by Joseph Henry Poett and later sold to Anson Burlingame in 1866. The San Mateo Rancho property was later sold to William C. Ralston in 1872 and Ralston began to develop plans fora residential park in this area as earlyas 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Burlingame Park was the largest of the subdivisions, and the development of these three neighborhoods is closely related. Hall's early plan -13- Initial Study Summary 1117 Costa Rica Avenue 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 forthe subdivision. The plan "centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree-lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents" (Brechin, "Imperial San Francisco," 94). The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club (established in 1893) and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911. Burlingame Park was one of the earliest residential developments in Burlingame, along with Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park, and followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded by Counry Road to the north; Burlingame Park, Crescent and Barroilhet avenues to the east; PepperAvenue to the south; and Bellevue Avenue to the west. Sanborn Fire Insurance 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 in the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s, including 117 Costa Rica Avenue. Many of these residences were designed in high architectural styles and were much grander in scale than the earlier residences. By 1949, nearly all of the approximately 250 lots were developed in Burlingame Park. The neighborhood today represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was first laid out in 1905, through the 1920s building boom, to present day. 117 Costa Rica Avenue is an example of a Craftsman Bungalow, a common housing type constructed in the neighborhood in the 1920s. The property was tapped for water on 1 March 1921, and the house appears on the March 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map (addressed as 119 Costa Rica Avenue). It had likelyjust been constructed orwas in the process of construction when the Sanborn Map was produced. The property was owned by W.H. Thompson and Belle Z. Thompson when the house was built, but the first occupants appear to have been Edwin H. and Frances F. Warner, who purchased the property from the Thompsons on 19 October 1921. The house was first listed in the Burlingame City Directories in 1922, with the Warners as residents. The Warners lived at 117 Costa Rica Avenue until 1927. During this period, Edwin Hall Warner was listed as a civil engineer and an architect in the Burlingame City Directories. Edwin attended New York University in the Polytechnic Engineering Department of the School of Applied Sciences. From 1884 to 1886, he was employed on the Mexican National and Mexican Central Railyways as Instrumentman and Assistant Engineer in charge of various construction works. From 1887 to 1888, he was Assistant Engineer and Acting Division Engineer for the Union Pacific Railway Company. From 1888 to 1890, he acted as Assistant Chief Engineer for the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company (later known as the Northern Pacific System). While in Seattle, Edwin married France B. Ferguson on 21 August 1890. From 1891 to 1898, Mr. Warner was in private practice in Seattle, Washington, and engaged in the development of mining properties, hydraulic power investigations, and the installation of mining power plants. He also worked as City Engineer for Seatlle on an extensive construction of sewers. From 1899 to 1903, he worked in private practice in Republic, Oregon, as Engineer for the Repubic Mining Company. The Warners moved to California in 1904, when Edwin became Chief Engineer of the Abbot Kinney Company, supervising the construction of canals and bridges for the entertainment destination of Venice, California. From 1907 to 1910, he was engaged in private practice in Los Angeles, designing irrigation projects, buildings, and ocean piers. He designed the Santa Monica Pier in 1908, one of fourteen designs proposed for the project. According to a 12 July 1908 article in the Los Angeles Times, he was the "consulting engineer' and "supervising architect for the pier." From 1910 to 1916, he was employed as a civic and electrical engineer by the South California Edison Electric Company. From 1916 to 1921, he worked privately on many projects, including concrete dams. After moving to Burlingame in early 1922, Edwin operated a private practice in San Francisco for a few years. However, in 1926, he was listed at 1231 Burlingame Avenue in the business district, and was mentioned in a 26 January 1926 advertisement in the San Mateo Times as "Edwin H. Warner, Architect and Engineer, Domestic Industrial Business." Mr. Warner was a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. In 1927, he died of a -14- Initial Study Summary 1117 Costa Rica Avenue heart attack at age 62 in his Burlingame office, and his wife moved out of the house following his death. According to a 17 June 1927 article in the San Mateo Times, titled "Civic Leader of Burlingame Found Dead in Office Today," he was not a prominent architect or engineer in Burlingame during the five years he resided there. However, he contributed to civic affairs by holding positions on the Planning Commission beginning in 1922, and the Park Commission in 1926. While a member of the Park Commission, Mr. Warner surveyed nearly all the trees in Burlingame. Later owners of 117 Costa Rica Avenue included Alfred and Anna Crossman, who lived at 117 Costa Rica Avenue from 1928 to 1932. Alfred was an electrical engineer. He may have died in 1932, as Edward W. and Louise Hall were listed at the address in 1933, and Anna Crossman was listed alone at the address from 1934 to 1947. It appears that Anna may have rented the house to the Halls for a year. She was listed in the City Directories as a piano teacher after 1933. William A. and Emma L. Klammer were listed at the address from 1948 to 1952. William was a radio engineer for a company called Robison-Klammer. Bruce D. and Pauline Inman resided at 117 Costa Rica Avenue from 1953 to 1954. Bruce worked forthe U.S. Navy. F. H. Fosterwas listed at the address in 1955. In 1956, Adalbert Bela (also known as Bela or Bert) and Rosa O. Furesz purchased and resided at 117 Costa Rica Avenue. Adalbertwas the sole ownerfrom 1992 to 2002. The Adalbert Bela Furesz Trust and Veronika Zuger Trust owned the property from 2002 to 2007. Adalbert died in 2007, and property ownership transferred to the Veronika ZugerTrust. On 11 January 2008, ownership transferred again to Andrew and Jolanda Zuger." Based on other construction activity in the area, it is unlikely that any historical relics will be encountered during construction. Should any archeological or historic, cultural, or ethnic resources be discovered during construction, work will be halted until they are fully investigated. Recreation Summary: 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. The site involved in this project is not presently zoned or used for recreational uses. -15- SAN MATEO COUNTY ASSESSOR-COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER WARREN SLOCUM 555 COUNTY CENTER REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 Finalization 2010028322 05/25/2010 08:38am 022 009 Item Title --------------------------------------------- 1 EIRA EIR Administrative Fee 1 EIRN Fish & Game: Neg Declaration Document ID Amount DOC# 2010-000085 2060.25 Time Recorded 08:38 am Total 2060.25 Payment Type Amount Check tendered 2060.25 # 256 Amount Due 0.00 THANK YOU PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR RECORDS