Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout133 Costa Rica Avenue - CEQA DocumentsCITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 � ���� 4.'� BURLINrGAME `��� C' R+'�7' {��`„ 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 County Clerk of San Mateo From: City of Burlinqame Community Development Department Planninq Division 501 Primrose Road Burlin ame CA 94010 �( EI�� Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (ND-556-P) Project Title: 133 Costa Rica Avenue, New Single Family Dwelling .�UL —� ZO�O Project Location: 133 Costa Rica Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 'OUNTY MANAG� Project Description: The proposal is to demolish the existing two-story house and to construct a new two story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 133 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house would cover 35% (2,535 SF) of the 7,220 SF lot, where 40% (2,888 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,757 SF (0.52 FAR) where 3,810 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There would be two covered detached parking spaces provided for this five bedroom house. The applicant has applied for Design Review 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, Buriingame, California, 94010. As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on Julv 6, 2010. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on July 26, 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 for a new, two- story single family dwelling and detached garage at 133 Costa Rica Avenue, and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been tentatively scheduled for Julv 26, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the Councii Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: July 6 2010 INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST � 3 C! � � 7 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-1 133 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 133 Costa Rica Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 David Lai 133 Costa Rica Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Low-Density Residential APN: 028-316-050 8. Description of the Project: The proposal is to demolish the existing two-story house and detached garage and to construct a new two story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 133 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house would cover 35% (2,535 SF) of the 7,220 SF aot, where 40% (2,888 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house and garage would have a total floor area of 3,757 S� (0.52 FAR) where 3,810 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There would be two covered detached parking spaces provided for this five bedroom house. The applicant has applied for Design Review„ 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 s;�bdivision 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. 9. Surrouinding 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 1923) 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. 4 / ' i �6Zoa illi Meeker, Community Development Director D te Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than 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 Pubiication 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 �ess Than 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 aiteration 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 1,15, X exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm 19 water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted 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 so��oes Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporeted d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,9 X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantiai 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? dl Interfere substantiallywith 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 so��oes Potentially Potentially LessThan 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 would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a localiy 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, �ti�ould 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, inciuding 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 �vastewater 1,15, X treatment provider which serves or may serve the 19 project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's 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 project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Complywith 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 Less Than 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 Sfudy Summary 133 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, Trt/e 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2009 edition. 3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Bur/ingame, Burlingame, California, 2002. 4 2000 Census 5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1981. 6 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mafeo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. 7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. 8 Map ofApproxrmate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, September 16, 1981 9 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing fhe Air Quality Impacts 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 Subsfances Sifes List, April 1998 13 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, December, 1994 14 Project plans date stamped June 8, 2010 15 City of Burlingame, Engineering Memo dated March 1, 2010 16 City of Buriingame, Building Department Memos dated April 12, 2010 and February 19, 2010 17 City of Burlingame, Arborist Memo dated February 22, 2010 18 City of Buriingame, Fire Department Memo dated February 25, 2010 19 City of Burlingame, NPDES Memo dated February 26, 2010 20 133 Costa Rica Avenue Historic Resource Analysis, prepared by Gretchen Hilyard, Page & Turnbull, Inc. -10- lnitial Study Summary 133 Costa Rica Avenue Land use and Planning Summary: No lmpact. The subject property is currently occupied by a two-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 7,220 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. The Planning Commission will review the project and determine compliance with Design Review criteria. Population and Housing Summary: No Impacf. 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 City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element. The proposed project will not create any more housing because it is replacing an existing single family dwelling on the same parcel. Geologic Summary: No Impact. 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 lmpacf. This is a redevelopment project to replace an existing residence on a currently occupied parcel. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway. 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 drivewaywidth and length. 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 prcject is rct subject to the stat2-mandated water conser�ation prcgram; 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-densiry 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 or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities. The proposed single-family dwelling meets the on-site parking -11- Initral Study Summary requirement established in the zoning code. 133 Costa Rica Avenue Biological Resources Summary: No Impact, The site currentiy 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 wiil be planted in 24" box size: three Evergreen Pears, one Crepe Myrtle, two Flowering Dogwoods and five Ginkgo Bilobas. 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 intertere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the Ciry 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. 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 prcposed use. Utilities and Service Systems Summary: No Impacf. 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 City 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 Form to be reviewed and approved by the Chief Building Official. It is required that records shall be kept and �if�� � Initial Study Summary submitted to the City prior to the final inspection of the project. 133 Costa Rica Avenue Aesthetics Summary: No Impacf. The site currently contains a smaller two-story single 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 by the Planning Commission. The proposed house will cover 35% of the lot and will be 3,757 SF in area. The height, as measured from average top of curb, will be 29'-2" and will be setback 26'-3" from the street. The exterior material will be Redwood or Cedar shingle siding with 8" laps, with an Eldorado stone base and chimney, and a composition shingle roof. The detached two-car garage will also have the Cedar shingle siding and a composition shingle roof. The windows will be wood framed with simulated true divided lights and 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 Significantlmpacf. The existing two-story house on the property was built in 1923. 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 133 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.: "133 Costa Rica Avenue is located on a rectangular lot measuring 50' by 147.75' on the west side of Costa Rica Avenue, between Barriolhet and Howard avenues. Built in 1923, 133 Costa Rica Avenue is a one-story over raised basement, wood-frame, single family residence designed in a simplified English Cottage style. The rect�n��lar-�lan b�ilding fe�tures a jerknhead roof rovered in composition �hingles. The buile�ing is c!�d in stucco and has a concrete foundation. The City of Burlingame was first developed in the mid- to late-nineteenth century by wealthy San Franciscans desiring large estates in close proximity to San Francisco. As the population grew, the need for services arose and a small town emerged in the late nineteenth century (Burlingame Avenue was laid out in circa 1875, and Burlingame Square and Railroad Station were constructed in 1894). After the 1906 Earthquake and Fire, even more residents fled San Francisco, seeking refuge from the decimated city. Many came to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster as many residences and businesses, such as the Bank of Burlingame (1907-1908), were constructed. In 1908, the town was officially incorporated. By 1920, the population had increased to 4,107 and a residential building boom began that continued through the 1930s. T�ie house �t i 33 Costa Rica Avenue was constructed in the Buriingame Park neignbornood, which was ane ofi three subdivisions, including Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park that were laid out on lands that were formeriy part of the San Mateo Rancho. The Rancho was inherited by Joseph Henry Poett and later sold to Anson Burlingame in 1866, for whom the City is named. The San Mateo Rancho property was later sold to -13- . �� � Initia! Study Summary 133 Costa Rica Avenue William C. Ralston in 1872 and Ralston began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Burlingame Park was the largest of the three subdivisions, and their development was closely related. 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 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 1999, 94). The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club (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. These developments 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 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 the house at 133 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, neariy all of the approximately 250 lots in Burlingame Park were developed. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth century building boom, to present day. The house at 133 Costa Rica Avenue is an example of the English Cottage style, a fairly common architectural style for residential buildings constructed in the 1920s. The house at 133 Costa Rica Avenue was connected to the City's water supply on September 17, 1923, indicating the date of its construction. Original owners, Karl F. and New Yier "Newey" Holzmuller, occupied the house from 1924 until 1942. According to Burlingame City Directories, Karl F. Holzmullerwas an underwriter and later a cigar manufacturer. The Holzmuller's son, Karl Junior, also resided at the house and was a salesman. In 1942, I. Clyde and Sue Jackson purchased the property and resided there with their son ivan C. until 1945. I. Clyde Jackson was employed at Swift & Company. Arthur D. and Atta Lobingier owned the house from 1945 to 1947. Arthur D. Lobingier was a merchant at Hunter's Point Th�ir daughter; Frances, is listed at #he address in 1946 as well as Thomas A. Lobingier of the United States Army. In 1947, Helmut B. and Charlotte E. Becker purchased the property and resided there until 1955. Helmut B. Becker was a pharmacist at the Sunset Drug Company. In 1956 the property is listed in Burlingame City Directories as vacant. Norman M. and Elizabeth "Bett�' Neish moved from their home in San Francisco to 133 Costa Rica Avenue around 1957. Norman M. Neish was an advertising man for the San Francisco Chronicle, and resided at 133 Costa Rica Avenue until his death in 1978. His wife, Elizabeth A. Neish, continued to reside at 133 Costa Rica Avenue until her death in 2008. Li 7ing �urchased the property irom the Elizabeth Ann Neish Trusi in 2G08. Ti �e prope�y was su�sequentiy solci to David and Lydia Lai, the current owners, in 2009." Based on other construction activiry in the area, it is unlikely that any historical relics will be encountered during -14- Initial Sfudy Summary 133 Costa Rica Avenue 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-