The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About136 Costa Rica Avenue - Environmental Document (3)' y� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF BURLINGAME ��' surxR.rrv�"'r�F Planning Division City Hall — 501 Primrose Road � PH: (650) 558-7250 Burlingame, Califomia 94010-3997 P„,��" FAX: (650) 696-3790 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION lfo: Interested Individuals From: Citv of Buriinaame Countv Clerk of San Mateo Communitv Development Department Plannin� Division 501 Primrose Road Burlin�ame, CA 94010 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (ND-596-P) Project Title: 136 Costa Rica Avenue, New Single Family Dwelling and Detached garage Project Location: 136 Costa Rica Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Piroject Description: The proposal is to demolish an existing one-story single family dwelling and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage at 136 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The new structures would cover 33% (2,368 SF) of the 7,179 SF lot, where 40% (2,872 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,796 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,798 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum al'owed. A total of three off-street parking spaces are required for the proposed five-bedroom house, two of which must be covered. The new detached garage will provide two code-compliant covered parking spaces and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') will be provided in the driveway. The new house and detached garage requires Design Review. This proDect is subject to CEQA because on based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. The subject property is located in Burlingame Park No. 2 therefore a historic survey was completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that it is not eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places. 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, Bur9ingame, California, 94010. As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on December 15, 2016. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the end of the 20-day review on lanuary 4, 2017. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination set torth 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 Divicion. 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 Negative Declaration and Design Review for a new two-story si�ngle family dwelling at 136 Costa Rica Avenue, has been tentatively scheduled for January 9, 2017 at 7:00 p.rro. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: December 15, 2016 136 COSTA RICA AVENUE INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. Project Title: 136 Costa Rica Avenue, New Two-Story Single Family Dwelling with a Detached Garage 2. Lead Agency Name and Address City of Burlingame, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. 4. 5. Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: R-1 William Meeker, Community Development Director (650)558-7250 136 Costa Rica Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 Frank and Maureen Cafferkey TR 136 Costa Rica Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Low-Density Residential APN: 028-293-260 8. Description of the Project: The proposal is to demolish an existing one-story single family dwelling and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage at 136 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The new structures would cover 33% (2,368 SF) of the 7,179 SF lot, where 40% (2,872 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,796 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,798 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. A total of three off-street parking spaces are required for the proposed five-bedroom house, two of which must be covered. The new detached garage will provide two code-compliant covered parking spaces and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') will be provided in the driveway. The new house and detached garage requires Design Review. This project is subject to CEQA based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, that indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. The subject property is located in Burlingame Park No. 2, therefore a historic survey was completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that it is not eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the southern portion of Burlingame west of EI Camino Real, in the Burlingame Park No. 2 Subdivision (see Figure 1). 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 inciuded 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. Initial 136 Costa Rica Avenue 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: There are no permits required from other public agencies. However, San Mateo County is a responsible agency. A building permit is required from the Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division. This space intentionally left blank. Initial S:udy _:—.—.—,�-- — I i i IWL1K I 1311YlKF'�IC��+ � 4+CiM IMiiI1Ww'6+tG R �a �:w1i �i . � � ` �" � ,�� ^" �. — 3 ' "' 9CGDF s !� R�f- �rJIC � �SYn �s-�evC i�' � � — a-e- .s+ ..e w e � � �r n�rurrc �*�PWJ M ..a.ncw.. c�u yv _�..—_ '__ ":I � I � 'L � — „�,�"` _� � � ti�Q,� aNlat I �-- � II �I . _ J � I I i -- -� _ _..' —_ —J �� 136 Costa Rica Avenue i ,a�. � � � .��ea �� r I � � q A � f'��, � � — — - L � ��.L - - � .J — -' �r-- = ypTx'i y _ �' d-125 I ��F'i1�G `�., ��l�l. ..i I f I' t. .,� i /.�- �� r . j r Ik a ,. 1 ; � - � .: � MI[i y ' Ir ` n� t � � : [v �' �Y { � T � � �` _ � S J � l.� ��- ,. �� ti';T I_� '�__. _ j' � 5' � -Nrl �� 7 ci�� l t -z ��fJ� '� � � �` � : 1..'A��d-r � �IM.� Q V .-�.I � 4� � � ( L( �j �.}tr''_ � y �' — -. ` _ .T, 3 � � Y I �i � � s i FI �`- 1 £ �.�''.+''C_'.�..-..�� — I � - i �',-j \� _. F� �' �1�� —� . y.e.� "' I , " . ' ��r�rexb 'r�� '"� mca ieou �� l �='. �-�� AJICUtt12 ��.1�4 f _ T^ . � \}b�� ... I ��V-_ . �� .� !� �i � �T{ � J ��v ..-�'}�'�--1 ' y J. .'. . ....::. .� . .. .:::'_�. �...:. ...:.:...-t.j... . -, .� � .�; ^ 7 .:-� „ 9 - � � 3� ( i l :; r -�� ' " � � '"�_�. b � ' 1rt �� I �'�z�,�.q I � �� t � , wy�: # � � � 1� t; 3 � �`4�z� . i� � � � � , � � r � ��'�f - -�^.I,.I� � �a..,�!: � II� �7 _,�. �� f.:: �.tn�� ,'�:i�ti; �i � f j e� � ,,,,�„ � a e�: 4 I.,� °A°°° a t� y, r�' YSjr , # �.� � � . I � � � •. I � W1'�� _ r 4 x : : l I �, � 2�a�Aao-, I I � � � � ^'' : I I�, � . ti' I � -�j � I � " i— -�'�'T� � �� I r J� � � � � ;, � � L µ , �; �Y� � I I I .. '�w.. �: . Y T�: py,__ � -� ��•� I._ _ �-. I � � a . � '�y�� ,I�t �,_ � ___ _ � .a��k� I � ` � � :-�t.�. �� I{'I � i A�..I� ��'� �; u�� =�w'r � x � -: ' I 1 � j ~ '��`'� ? � � � r. �- ��" i, c, C.. � � � - � , t,_� � � v17 .v: .. _...� _ �, _ l-_� � —(-- � I '. "i�� r-. . � ' �^ . � —.__. a v . .R--�-s•nv— t r�--�— y.,�` i / I _.._.,_ \ �_. ..Mi� 7 �..,a r-- — , � � --- ,� ,� _:..=. � � r ` , — _ — _ -T- .. — —: - _ , _..�?"_ ��M —__ � � _ _�—_ ,,,,� —�t x"��' �,.:; .—�;..�. _ �:__—�._ -- .. _ . 1.� J um`ewx��r,.m. ��'+. - - -�,�-� i'�dS7:4 �,;aA h'V�!�;'vc 150' F2�vV �r� SITE DEVEI,QPYtFA�' P�.�V �._ ,, A.2 Figure 2 Initial Environmental Impacts 136 Costa Rica Avenue Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentialiy affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation / Traffic ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: � I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wiil be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. i��=C �� — Signature William Meeker Printed Name December 15. 2016 Date City of Burlin�ame For Issues (and Supporting Informotion Sourcesf: 1. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or q�ality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion Less Than Significont or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact � � � � The site currently contains a one-story single family dwelling and a detached garage. The proposed project �onsists of demolishing the existing house and detached garage and building a new, two-story single family dweAling with a detached garage (see Figure 2). The project is subject to residential Design Review for review of the project's compatibility with the neighborhood. The Design Review application requires review and approval by the Planning Commission. The new structures would cover 33% (2,368 SF) of the 7,179 SF lot, Hvhere 40% (2,872 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,796 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,798 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The height as measured from average top of curb wiil be 29'-8" where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed. The house would be set back 20'-8%z " from the front property line, where 20'-6" is the minimum required and 54'-6'/z " from the rear property line, where 15' is the minimum required. Exterior materials on the proposed house include a composition shingle roof, wood shingle siding, stone veneer base, wood trim, and aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites. Exterior lighting provided on the lot would need to conform to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be directed onto the site. Given the proposed setbacks and that the project includes planting four new landscape trees at the front and rear of the site, views from surrounding properties would be minimally impacted. The neighborhood consists of a variety of styles, most of which are one and two-story dwellings. The subject property would be consistent with the development in this area. While the project has the potential to generate an incremental increase in light generated on the site compared to existing conditions, the project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that wauld adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area since the house would be screened by other existing houses and existing and proposed vegetation and trees. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required Smurces �he City of Burlinqame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 Edition. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 — Electrical Code, Burlingame, California, 2010 ed'ition. Project plans date stamped October 13, 2016 and December 2, 2016. 7 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impott Incorporation Impact 136 Costa Rica Avenue No Impact 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site does not include active agricultural uses, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use and would have no effect on farmland or any property subject to a Williamson Act contract. Mitigation Measures: None Required Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Project plans date stamped October 13, 2016 and December 2, 2016. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 Edition. E3 Initial Study Less Than Significant or Significant Potentiolly with Less Than Signifitpnt Mitigation Significant 136 Costa Rica Avenue Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation Impact No lmpact 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ � applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ � substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) GIl Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ � The proposed application is for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling with a detached garage. While this project would accommodate a larger dwelling unit for habitation, the change in emissions is insignificant. The subject property is zoned for low-density residential development and with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction, the proposed project would not create any deterioration in the air quality or ciimate, locally or regionally. Demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012. 0 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Informotion Sources): 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigation lmpact Incorporation 136 Costa Rica Avenue Less Than Significpnt Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or � through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected wetlands, through direct removal, filling, hydrologicalinterruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � � � � � � The site currently has an existing single family residence and detached garage. The City's Reforestation Ordinance defines a protected size tree as a tree with a 48-inch circumference when measured 54-inches above adjacent grade. There are seven existing landscape trees and one fruit tree on the site, measuring four to seven inches in diameter. None of the existing trees are protected size; four existing landscape trees and one fruit tree are proposed to be removed with the proposed project. In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with a single-family residence is required to provide a minimum of one, 24-inch box-size, non-fruit tree for every 1,000 SF of living space. The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements. In addition to retaining three existing landscape trees, the landscape plan indicates that two (2) new, 24-inch box size landscape trees and two (2) new, 36-inch box size landscape trees will be planted as part of the proposal, where a minimum of four (4), 24-inch box size trees are required. 10 Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources City of Burlingame, Parks Division Memorandum, dated August 15, 2016. 136 Costa Rica Avenue The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 —Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 Edition. Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game. Project plans date stamped October 13, 2016 and December 2, 2016. 11 Initial Stu Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pu rs ua nt to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion Cess Than Significant or Siqnifitant Potentially with less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impatt Intorporation lmpact ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 136 Costa Rica Avenue No Impact ❑ � � � The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated November 9, 2015. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California �tegister of Historical Resources under any criteria. Those four criterion include Events, Persons, Architecture and Information Potential. The following is an excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation that was conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc.: "The house at 136 Costa Rica Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed locally. 136 Costa Rica Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Constructed in 1921, the building does convey contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Burlingame Park, but it is not among the earliest homes in the neighborhood, nor does it appear especially influential in the area's development of the neighborhood. It is one of many residence of similar size and style constructed during the 1920s-1930s building boom in this area and is not individually significant 12 I'nitial Study 136 Costa Rica Avenue within this historic context. Therefore, the property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. 136 Costa Rica Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion B/2 (Persons). Research has not revealed any association with people significant in local, state or national history. The building's original owners, Herbert and Freda Williamson, operated a San Francisco-based business, but do not appear to be particularly influential in the development of that related industry or any other related context. The White and Willis families were long-time owners and occupants of the property, but research has not revealed them to be part of a larger historic context. The DeBusks were local business owners and lived at the property for a short time, yielding no significance. Little information has been uncovered regarding Gloria Eberle, another long-time owner and occupant. Research does not indicate that these former owners and occupants rose to a level of significance at the local, state, or national level such that the property would be individually eligible for listing under Criterion B/2. 136 Costa Rica Avenue does not appear to be individual�y eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The architect and builder are currentiy unknown, so it cannot be said to be the work of a master at this time. It is an intact example of the Craftsman style residences that were prevalent in Burlingame with its gable roof, exposed rafter tails, and original windows and decorative features. However, it is not a particularly outstanding, or distinctive, example of Craftsman style architecture in the Burlingame Park neighborhood and lacks many of the character-defining features of an exemplary Craftsman style composition. Therefore, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion C/3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 136 Costa Rica Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4(Information Potential) is beyond the scope ofthis report. The house at 136 Costa Rica Avenue has undergone very few known alterations. A wood trellis has been removed from the primary entrance area, and a few windows appear to have been replaced, likely within the original openings. The house was reroofed in 1997. The house still conveys its original design and character as a vernacular interpretation of the Craftsman architectural style. The building retains excellent integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. The house has not been moved and therefore it also retains integrity of location. It continues to be used as a single- family residence within a universally residential neighborhood. The site's landscaping has changed over the property's history, but the landscaped front and back yards, as well as the detached garage, remain intact overall. Several neighboring houses have been either been altered or replaced with new construction, which is typically two-stories in height. However, the density of the houses and general design characteristics within Burlingame Park remain. Therefore, the building retains integrity of setting and association. For these reasons, the building retains historic integrity. The Craftsman-style residence at 136 Costa Rica Avenue was constructed in 1921 during a building boom in the residential subdivision of Burlingame Park. The property appears to have undergone very few alterations. No significant events are associated with the property, nor is it considered to be an outstanding example of Craftsman style architecture found in the area. The White-Willis families and Gloria Eberle were long-time occupants; however, neither they, nor the other owners 13 Initial 136 Costa Rica Avenue or occupants, appear to be have contributed to history in a significant way. As such, the California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of "6Z" has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was "found ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or local designation through survey evaluation."" Based on the above noted finding in the Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated November 9, 2015, the project would have no impact on cultural resources. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 136 Costa Rica Avenue, Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated November 9, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 14 Initial Stud Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion Significont o� Potentially Significant Impact L Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation ❑■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 136 Costa Rica Avenue Less Than Significant Impact 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 the vicinity over 6,000 SF in area. There will be less seismic exposure to people and equipment than at present, since the new single family residence will comply with current California Building Code seismic standards. The site is approximately two miles from the San Andreas Fault. The project will be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 15 Initial Study Sources 136 Costa Rica Avenue The City of eurlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps, http://gis.aba�.ca.�ov/website/Hazards/?hlvr=liq5usceptibility, accessed November, 2016. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1981. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memorandum, dated August 10, 2016. Project Plans date stamped October 13, 2016 and December 2, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 16 Initial Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorpoiatian Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 136 Costa Rica Avenue No Impact � � Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards. SFBAAB's nonattainment status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact on air quality would be considered significant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it wouid be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant. The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are: For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities. • For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e. Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annuai emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the screening criteria, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. For single family dwellings, the 17 Initial Study 136 Costa Rica Avenue BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes) set a screening threshold of 56 dwelling units for any individual single family residential project. The proposed project would be comprised of one unit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD's 2010 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD Homepage, accessed May 2012). As such, lead agencies need to determine appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Lead agencies may rely on the BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures. However, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project's significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air District's 1999 Thresholds of Significance and to make determinations regarding the significance of an individual project's air quality impacts based on substantial evidence in the record for that project. For this analysis, the City of Burlingame has determined that the BAAQMD's significance thresholds in the updated May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for project operations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are the most appropriate thresholds for use to determine air quality impacts of the proposed Project. First, Burlingame has used the May 2011 BAA4MD thresholds in previous environmental analyses under CEQA and found them to be reasonable thresholds for assessing air quality impacts. In addition, these thresholds are lower than the 1999 BAAQMD thresholds, and thus use of the thresholds in the May 2011 CEQA Guidelines is more conservative. Therefore, the city concludes these thresholds are considered reasonable for use in this analysis. In this case, the proposed project includes one unit. Given that the proposed project would fall well below the 56 dwelling units threshold specified in BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for single family residential development, it is not anticipated that the project wiil create significant operational GHG emissions. Climate Action Plan. Burlingame's Climate Action Plan is designed to focus on near- and medium-term solutions to reduce its emissions. These program and policy recommendations were developed after careful consideration of the unique characteristics and demographics of the Burlingame community and the major sources of emissions from Burlingame's Community Greenhouse Inventory. The five major focus areas include: energy use/green building, transportation/land use, solid waste, education/outreach and municipal programs. Energy efficiency and green building programs provide the fastest and most economical means to reduce emissions. The proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Burlingame's Green Building Ordinance. Verification of compliance with Section A5.203.1.1 Tier 1(15% above Title 24) of the Green Building Ordinance or LEED Silver sha�l be accepted as the methods of ineeting compliance with this ordinance. By complying with the Green Building Ordinance, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment nor would it conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Mitigation Measures: None Required. F�3 Initial Study Sources 136 Costa Rica Avenue Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2011 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes). City of Burlingame, Climate Action Plan, Burlingame, California, June, 2009. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memorandum, dated August 10, 2016. This space intentronally left blank. 19 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 8. HA2ARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigatian Significant Impact Incorporation Impoct ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 136 Costa Rica Avenue No Impatt ❑ � � � � � � � 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. However, if it is found that there is asbestos in the existing house, a contractor that is licensed and specialized in removal of asbestos shall be required and that the asbestos shall be properly disposed of in accordance with State law. 20 Initial Study 136 Costa Rica Avenue Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. NPDES Best Management Practices are required to ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources: The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 Edition. State of Calijornia Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, February 16, 2012. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped October 13, 2016 and December 2, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 21 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? d; Substantially alterthe existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 6) h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other fiood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion less Than Significant or Significont Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation lmpoct ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 136 Costa Rica Avenue No Impact � � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The proposed project is a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway. The project site is located in Flood Zone X, which is determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. The site is tied into existing water main and storm water collection distribution lines which have adequate capacity to serve the existing building. All of the surface water will be required to percolate into pervious services on-site with the remainder draining to the street. There will be an insignificant increase to the amount of impervious surface area due to the increase in the footprint of the proposed structures and driveway width. This added impervious surface will cause a slight increase in storm water runoff, but is considered insignificant given the size of the lot and the remaining pervious areas. Since the site is less than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the state-mandated water conservation program; although water conservation measures as required by the City will be met. 22 Initial 136 Costa Rica Avenue The domestic potable water supply for Burlingame and the proposed project area is not provided by groundwater sources, but rather from surface water sources maintained by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Groundwater would not be used to supply water for the project, and no dewatering of the site is anticipated. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. The project proponent will be required to ensure that all contractors implement BMP's during construction. This project is subject to the state mandated Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance; compliance will be determined by approval of a complete Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist, and landscape and irrigation design plans at time of the building permit application. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 26, Chapter26.16— Physical Design of Improvements, Burlingame, California. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, FIRM- Panel 153 E, Map 06081C0153E, effective date October 16, 2012. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memoranda dated October 14, 2016 and August 12, 2016. City of Buriingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated August 10, 2016. Project plans date stamped October 13, 2016 and December 2, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 23 Initial Study Significant or Potentially Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact 136 Costa Rica Avenue Less Than Significant with Less Thon Mitigation Significant Incorporation Impact No Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � Discussion The subject property is currently occupied by a one-story single family dwelling and detached garage; the proposed project consists of building 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 the City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712. The existing lot is 7,179 square feet in area and is not part of a proposed subdivision or lot adjustment. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The project is subject to single family residential Design Review. The general plan would allow a density of eight units to the acres and the application is for one replacement unit on 0.16 acres, a density of six units per acre. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The subject property is within the Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 2, which abuts the Town of Hillsborough to the west, and which was included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences, all of which are within the City of Burlingame city limits. The proposed single family dwelling is a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District. The project would not result in a fundamental conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on land use and planning. The proposed residence conforms to the measurable requirements of the zoning code. The Planning Commission will review the project and determine compliance with the Residential Design Review Guidelines. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 Edition. Project plans date stamped October 13, 2016 and December 2, 2016. 24 Initial 136 Costa Rica Avenue less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Infoimation SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral � � � � resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b} Result in the loss of availability of a locally- � � � � important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion According to the San Mateo County General Plan, Mineral Resources Map, the project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. San Mateo County, General Plan, October 18, 2010. This space intentionally left blank. 25 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 12. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing withoutthe project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan � or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 136 Costa Rica Avenue No Impact � � � � � � The surrounding area has been occupied by single family dwellings for many years. There will be no significant increase to the ambient noise level in the area as a result of the proposed single family dwelling. The noise in the area will be general residential noise such as vehicles coming to and from the house, sounds from the residents when using the backyard and noises from putting out garbage cans. The new structure will be compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. Construction of the proposed dwelling will not require pile driving or other significant vibration causing construction activity. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code, which limits construction hours to 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and no construction on Sundays and holidays. In addition, the site is located outside the designated noise-impacted area from San Francisco International Airport. The project does not include any permanent operational activity that would result in excessive or perceptible vibration, and the operational impact of the project on increased vibration levels would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. � Ir�itial Study Sources 136 Costa Rica Avenue The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 Edition. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memorandum, dated August 10, 2016. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped October 13, 2016 and December 2, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 27 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion Less Than Signifitant or Significant Potentially with Cess Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incarporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑� 136 Costa Rica Avenue No Impact � � � This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density residential uses. The proposed single family dwelling conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's recently adopted Housing Element (2015). The proposed project will not create any more housing because it replaces an existing single family dwelling on the same parcel. Since the subject property contains a single family dwelling, the project would not displace existing housing or people. A new road, extension of a roadway or other infrastructure is not required for the single family dwelling and therefore the project would not induce substantial population growth. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on population and housing. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources Project plans date stamped October 13, 2016 and December 2, 2016. The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 2015. � Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Significant or Potentially Significant Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Impact ■ I� � � � 136 Costa Rica Avenue No Impact �1 ■ � // ■ �I � /1 Discussion The subject property is located within the City of Burlingame jurisdiction. The proposed project includes replacing a single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling on the site, which represents an insignificant increase in the total population of the City. Therefore, existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the proposed residential unit. Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which also serves the Town of Hillsborough and the City of Millbrae. Three stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road. As part of the permitting process, the Central County Fire Department would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city fire safety regulations. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional demand for fire protection services, and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities, the project's potential impact on fire protection services would be less than significant. Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department, located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project consists of replacing a single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling. Therefore, the project would not result in an increased demand for police services or require the expansion or construction of police facilities. The projecYs potential impact on police services would be less than significant. Students in the City of Burlingame are served by two school districts: Burlingame School District (BSD) for grades K-8 and San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for grades 9-12. The proposed project would not add any additional residential units; it is anticipated that the potential number of school-age children would not increase or only increase slightly. Therefore, any students generated by the project would be accommodated by the existing capacity of the two districts, resulting in a less than significant impact. 29 Initial Stu 136 Costa Rica Avenue The City of Burlingame is served by several parks and recreation facilities, including 13 parks and playgrounds, an aquatic center, and a golf and soccer center. Since there would be no increase in the number of residential units, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other public facilities and therefore the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memorandum, dated August 11, 2016. City of Burlingame Website, www.burlingame.org This space intentionally left blank. 30 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Informafion Sources): 15. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion Less Thon Significant o� Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Inco�poration Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 136 Costa Rica Avenue No Impact � � The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The site involved in this project is not presently zoned or used for recreational purposes. Since the proposed project consists of replacing a single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other recreation facilities. Therefore, impacts to recreation would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. This space intentionally left blank. 31 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Less Than Significant o� Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporation 16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ❑ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 136 Costa Rica Avenue Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ � b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The 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 ir� the traffic generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any temporary incremental increase to traffic or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities. The new dwelling will have five bedrooms. Three parking spaces are required on site, two of which must be covered. The covered spaces are each required to be at least 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep. The new detached garage will provide two code complying covered parking spaces and one uncovered space will be provided in the driveway. The proposed project meets the off-street parking requirement established in the zoning code. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 Edition. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped October 13, 2016 and December 2, 2016. 32 Issues (ond Supportinq Information Sourcesl: 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion Significant or Less Than Potentially Significant with Signifitant Mitigation Impact Incorporotion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The subject property is currently occupied by a single family dwelling. Water is provided to the subject property by an existing 4-inch cast iron pipe along Costa Rica Avenue. The proposed residence will be connected to an existing 8-inch Polyvinyl chloride pipe along Costa Rica Avenue. To prevent flooding a backflow prevention device is required to be installed. Additional storm runoff due to the new single family dwelling and detached garage will be required to percolate on-site into pervious areas. Any storm runoff which drains to the street frontage will flow along Costa Rica Avenue and then along Howard Avenue to the closest catch basin located near 1601 Howard Avenue, where it then empties into Burlingame Creek. The City Engineer has indicated that there is adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage systems to accommodate the new house. Therefore, the project's impact to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant. The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems. All new utility connections to serve the site and that are affected by the development will be installed to meet current code standards; sewer laterals from the main on the site to serve the new structure will be checked and replaced if necessary. The current solid waste service provider is Recology, which hauls waste collected in Burlingame to the San Carlos Transfer Station and the Recyclery of San Mateo County for sorting then disposal at Ox Mountain Landfill. Demand for solid waste disposal services generated by the project could be adequately served by 33 Initial5tudy 136 Costa Rica Avenue existing capacity at the transfer station and landfill and the project would comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractor would be required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream and transport and recycle the construction waste separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid waste generated during operation of the project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division - Water, Sewer and Storm Drain Maps; accessed December 15, 2016. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated October 14, 2016 and August 12, 2016. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memorandum dated August 10, 2016. Recology San Mateo County, www.recolo�vsanmateocounty.com, site accessed November, 2016. Project Plans date stamped October 13, 2016 and December 2, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 34 Initial Study Significant or Less Than Potentially Significant with Significant Mitigation Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the � quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? ("Cumulative considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion ❑■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 136 Costa Rica Avenue Less Than Significpnt Impact No Impoct ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any potential short-term increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less than significant level, as described throughout the Initial Study. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are particular to the project or its site. No project-specific significant effects particular to the project or its site were identified. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project will not have significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 35