The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1508 Cypress Avenue - Environmental DocumentP� E-� t�0 �'�� ` G 2�_:�' r 2 c� � �';� , �� lla rk �- � a h `� ��..�r V rL: "�:� Chief Eiections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Posting Confirmation for Environmental Impact Reports Date: June 29, 2012 To: City of Burlingame - Planning Division SO1 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 555 Counfy Cen°e� Re;is�c�o::i Ciiy. CA G;Ci63 ' 6f:s phone 650.363.�500 fax 65��.599.?4�8 email :��E>rk �i;sr7i::c:�rea.cng web •.ti��rr�.sn��c:::rF.crg Subject: Return of Environmental Documents Filed and Posted for 30 days. Public Resources Code Section 21092.3 : The attached document(s), File Number 124789 was received, filed and a copy posted with the County Clerk on April 24 2012 and remained posted for thirty calendar days. De La Vega Deputy Clerk on behalf of Mark Church SS-12 Posting Confirmation Letter for Environmen[al Impact Reports.doc State of California—The Resources Agency ' ' � ' DEPARTMENT OF FISHAND GAME 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY - ��r- M ►,.�.�:�� - � IGr1 r1 i✓� �t�� i�i�� [�Local PublicAgency ❑ School District ❑ OtherSpecia _CKAPPLICABLE FEES: , �❑ nvironmental Impact Report (EIR) itigated/Negative Declaration (ND)(MND) ❑ Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) ❑ �Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs (CRP) �j� CountyAdministrative Fee ❑ Project that is exempt from fees �❑ otice of Exemption FG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) U Other lAYMENT METHOD: ❑ Cash ❑ Credit Check ❑ Other �IGNATURE x aESZ DE LA VEGp WHITE - PROJECT APPLICANT YELLOW $ TOTALRECEIVED $ � � L� � �� G�� PINK-LEADAGENCY GOLDENROD-COUNTYCLERK DFG753.5a(Rev.11/11) � RECEIPT# STATE CLEARI NG HOUSE # (�IaPPlicab�e) �� y�lZ District ❑ State Agency ❑ Private Entity $2,919.00 $ $2,101.50 $ ' $850.00 $ $992.50 $ $50.00 $ ` . ' � NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ❑ Office of Planning and Research FROM: CITY OF BURLINGAME P.O Box 3044 Community Development Dept. Sacramento, California 95812-3044 � I��'�-+ � Planning Division SA.N AAATEO COUNTI( 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 � County Clerk ��p 4 2012 County of San Mateo 401 County Center, Sixth Floor �IARK f�1! '/ Redwood City, California 94063 8y � DEPUTY CLERK SUB7ECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in co pliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ND-561-P — 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue — Two New Single Family Dwellings and Detached Garages to replace an Project Title / t/"'r T s� William Meeker (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submifted to Clea�inghouse) 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue City of Burlingame San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The proposal includes demolishing the existing single family dwelling and two detached structures on the property and building two new, two-story single family dwellings and detached two-car garages, one on each of the originally subdivided lots, at 1510 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and detached structures on the site, causing the two existing standard lots to re-emerge. Temporary addresses were assigned to the proposed new houses on each lot; 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue, each lot measuring 7,500 SF (50' x 150'). There are no changes proposed to the existing lot sizes or con�guration. The application includes a Conditional Use Permit for re- emergence of two parcels previously merged by a use, Design Review and Side Setback Variance for construction of two new, two- story single family dwellings and detached garages. 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 Heights) 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 although the building retains historic integrity, it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above-described project on March 26, 2012 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project [❑will � will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. � A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: City of Burlingame, Community Development Department, Planninq Division, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame CA 94010. 3. Mitigation measures [❑were � were not] made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [❑was �was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings (� were ❑ were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final EIR or Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Burlingame, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. %,,.,, %�� :�,/�, /� ��1� %ll� m �leeker, Commun'ity Development Director STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME :��'� `�,�:.� Bay Delta Region �: �` 7329 Silverado Trail ��% Napa, California 94558 •—�"' (707) 944-5500 CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination Form Date Submitted: February 14, 2012 Applicant Name: Craig Suhl Applicant Address: Post Office Box 117697, Burlingame, CA 94011 Project Name: Suhl's Home CEQA Lead Agency: City of Burlingame CEQA Document Type: Negative Declaration SCH Number and/or local agency ID Number: N/A Project Location: 1510 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 .> i� 1 r� �. L� ' 17 20i2 - BURLINGAME , , -•.,.��..�:^ ;, �„ Brief Project Description: This is a single family home and the owner requests to remodel/rebuild due to its age and old condition. This home's address falls within an area the City of Burlingame has determined as possibly having some type of historical significance. The owner had a historical evaluation done by Page and Turnbull, Inc. in December 2011 and it was determined the home is in no way historical and thus does not qualify for placement on the California or National Registers. Describe clearly why the project has no effect on fish and wildlife: This address has no creek or waterway around it that would have any effect on fish and wildlife. It is located approximately 100 feet away from EI Camino Real in an area of all single family homes. There is nothing on this property that would have any effect on anything that would fall under the authority of Fish and Game. Determination: Based on a review of the Project as proposed, the Department of Fish and Game has determined that for purposes of the assessment of CEQA filing fees [F&G Code 711.4(c)] the project has no potential effect on fish, wildlife and habitat and the project as described does not require payment of a CEQA filing fee. This determination does not in any way imply that the project is exempt from CEQA and does not determine the significance of any potential project effects evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Please retain this original determination for your records; you are required to file a copy of this determination with the County Clerk after your project is approved and at the time of filing of the CEQA lead agency's Notice of Determination (NOD). If you do not file a copy of this determination with the County Clerk at the time of filing of the NOD, the appropriate CEQA filing fee will be due and payable. Without a valid No Effect Determination Form or proof of fee payment, the project will not be operative, vested, or final, and any local permits issued for the project will be invalid, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(3). DFG Approval By: �L� ��%�y''—" Date: April 17, 2011 Scott Wilson Acting Regional Manager Bay Delta Region CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 `� BURLINGAME �' - � ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division PH: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Interested Individuals From: City of Burlinqame Countv Clerk of San Mateo Communitv Development DepartrF�r# ;^� �;�o � j-, Planninq Division � 501 Primrose Road � Burlinqame, CA 94010 �riie � t �U�l �`�"°�'vt,: r :�t��`'�t�i:.!4� Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (ND-561-P) Project Title: 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue, Two New Single Family Dwellings and Getached Garages to replace an existing single family dwelling and detached garage Project Location: 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The proposal includes demolishing the existing single family dwelling and two detached structures on the property and building two new, two-story single family dwellings and detached two-car garages, one on each of the originally subdivided lots, at 1510 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and detached structures on the site, causing the two existing standard lots to re-emerge. Temporary addresses were assigned to the proposed new houses on each lot; 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue, each lot measuring 7,500 SF (50' x 150'). There are no changes proposed to the existing lot sizes or configuration. The application includes a Conditional Use Permit for re-emergence of two parcels previously merged by a use, Design Review and Side Setback Variance for construction of two new, two-story single family dwellings and detached garages. 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 Heights) 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 although the building retains historic integrity, it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby given of the City's intent to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A negative declaration is prepared for a project when the initial study has identified no potentially significant effect on the environment, and there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of an Initial Study, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has prepared a Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010. As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on March 6, 2012. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on March 26, 2012. 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 Conditional Use Permit for re- emergence of two parcels previously merged by a use, Design Review and Side Setback Variance for construction of two new, two-story single family dwellings and detached garages at 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue, and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been tentatively scheduled for March 26, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: March 6, 2012 INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2. K� 4. @ 7 Project Title: 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue, Two New Single Family Dwellings and Detached Garages to replace an existing single family dwelling and detached garage on the site. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Nurnber: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address General Plan Designation: Zoning: R-1 City of Burlingame, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 William Meeker, Community Development Director (650) 558-7250 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 Cypress Ave. Investments LLC PO Box 117697 Burlingame, CA 94010 Low-Density Residential APN: 028-294-070 8. Description of the Project: The proposal includes demolishing the existing single family dwelling and two detached structures on the property and building two new, two-story single family dwellings and detached two-car garages, one on each of the originally subdivided lots, at 1510 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and detached structures on the site, causing the iwo existing standard lots to re-emerge. As required by the City of Burlingame, temporary addresses were assigned to the proposed new houses on each lot; 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue. Lot 6, or 1508 Cypress Avenue, measures 7,500 SF (50' x 150') and Lot 7, or 1510 Cypress Avenue, measures 7,500 SF (50' x 150'), where the minimum lot size for the area is 5,000 SF. There are no changes proposed to the existing lot sizes or configuration. The proposed house and detached garage at 1508 Cypress Avenue would cover 34% (2,573 SF) of the 7,500 SF lot, where 40% (3,000 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed and would have a total floor area of 3,894 SF (0.52 FAR) where 3,900 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There would be two covered detached parking spaces provided for this six-bedroom house. The proposed house and detached garage at 1510 Cypress Avenue would cover 34% (2,558 SF) of the 7,500 SF lot, where 40% (3,000 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed and would have a total floor area of 3,889 SF (0.52 FAR) where 3,900 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There would be two covered detached parking spaces provided for this six-bedroom house. The application includes a Conditional Use Permit for re- emergence of two parcels previously merged by a use, Design Review and Side Setback Variance for construction of finro new, two-story single family dwellings and detached garages. 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 properly is located (Burlingame Heights) 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 although the building retains historic integrity, it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the Ciry of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the Burlingame Heights Subdivision, in the southern portion of Burlingame west of EI Camino Real. The original house on the parcel (built in 1928), the detached garage, the rumpus room and the detached dressing room 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 City of San Mateo lies one block to the south of the subject property and the Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies two blocks north 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 Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recreation Materials Hydrology & Water Ivoise 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. 3 � / illiam eeker, munity Development Director Da e 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 eisewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 3 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial 5,6,7 X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated 5,6,7 X on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 5,6,7 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 5,6,7 X liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 6 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 5 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, 5,6 7 X or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 5,6 X 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the 5 X use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? -3- 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 altPr the existing drainage pattern of the 1,15 X site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 1,15, X site or area, including through the alteration of the 19 course of a stream or river, or substantialfy increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed 1,15, X the capacity of existing or planned storm water 19 drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of 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)? C� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentia�ly Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,9 X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 1,9 X number of people? 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in 1,15 X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of 15 X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including 1,13 X either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design 14, 15, X feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous 16 intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 14,16, X 18 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,14 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1,4 X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 1,11 X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian 1,11 X habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 1,11 X protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 1,11 X native or resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? -5- issues and Supporting Information Sources so��ces Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2 X protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 1,11 X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1 X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important 1 X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,10 X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,2,12 X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 1,12 X acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 12 X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 1, 12, X or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 13 two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 1 X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with 1,10 X an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 1 X loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? � Issues and Supporting Information Sources so�r�es 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 iwo miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 1 X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1,18 X b) Police protection? 1 X c) Schools? 1 X d) Parks? 1 X e) Other public facilities? 1 X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1,15, X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 19 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 1,15, X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of 19 existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm 1,15, X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing 19 facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 1,15, X project from existing entitlements and resources, or 19 are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,15, X treatment provider which serves or may serve the 19 project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projecYs projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? -7- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 1,15 X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 1,15 X regulations related to solid waste? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, 1 X but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1,2, X quality of the site and its surroundings? 14,20 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare 1,4 X which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Create a substantial adverse change in the 1, 20 X significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,20 X significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1,20 X resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 1,20 X outside of formal cemeteries? 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing 1,14 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 1,14 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 so��es 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 Study Summary 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 2 City of Burlingame, Municipaf Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2011 edition. 3 City of Burlingame City Council, 2009-2014 Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California. 4 2010 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 Mateo 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 of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, September 16, 1981 9 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality lmpacts of Projects and Plans, May, 2011 10 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 2011 11 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game 12 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998 13 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012 14 Project plans date stamped February 17, 2012 15 City of Burlingame, Engineering Memos dated February 2, 2012 16 City of Burlingame, Building Department Memos dated February 22, February 9 and January 18, 2012 17 City of Burlingame, Parks Supervisor Memos dated February 15 and January 17, 2012 18 City of Burlingame, Fire Department Memos dated January 18, 2012 19 City of Burlingame, NPDES Memos date stamped January 18, 2012 20 1510 Cypress Avenue Historic Resource Analysis, prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., December 7, 2011 -10- Initial Study Summary 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue Land use and Planning Summary: No Impact. The subject property is currently occupied by a single-story single family dwelling, detached garage and rumpus room. 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 property consists of two lots that are 7,500 square feet each in area. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The project is subject to single family residential Design Review for each lot. The general plan would allow a density of 8 units to the acre and the application is for two replacement units on two 0.2 acre parcels, 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 Heights Subdivision, which abuts the City of San Mateo to the south, and which was included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The surrounding properties are developed with single and multi-family residences, all of which are within the City of Buriingame city limits. The two proposed residences conform to all measurable requirements of the zoning code; however a Conditional Use Permit is required for re-emergence of two parcels previously merged by a use and a Variance is required for side setback to a proposed wing wall along the left side of the house at 1508 Cypress Avenue (0' proposed to wing wall, where 4' is the minimum required). The Planning Commission will review the project and determine compliance with Design Review criteria. Population and Housing Summary: No Impact. This site and the surrounding area are planned for low and medium high-density residential uses. The proposed project of replacing an existing single family dwelling bu;lt over two legal parcels with two new single family dwellings, one on each parcel, conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plar� 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 create only one additional dwelling unit because of building two new dwellings on the two separate parcels that exist under the existing single family dwelling on site. 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 dwellings 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, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability. Water Summary: No Impact. This is a redevelopment project to replace an existing dwelling with two new dwellings on iwo parcels currently occupied by one single family dwelling. 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 of an additional unit on the properry and due to the increased driveway area. This added impervious surface will cause a slight increase in storm water runoff, but is considered insignificant given the size of the lots and the remaining pervious areas. Since the site is less than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the state-mandated waterconservation program; although water conservation measures as required by the City will be met. Air Quality Summary: No Impact. The proposed application is for replacing an existing single family dwelling built over two legal parcels with two new single family dwellings, one on each parcel, on an existing developed site. While this project will accommodate iwo larger dwelling units for habitation, the change in emissions is insignificant. The subject property is zoned for low-density residential development and with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction; the proposed project will not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. Demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality -11- Initial Study Summary Management District. 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue Transportation/Circulation Summary: No lmpact. The site is on Cypress Avenue, a local street that provides access 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 two, single-family dwellings meet the on-site parking requirement established in the zoning code. Biological Resources Summary: No Impact. The site currently contains an existing single family residence and two detached structures. There are two existing protected size landscape trees on the property. The applicant has submitted applications for tree removal permits to the City's Parks Department in order to remove these two existing trees from 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 plans for the project comply with the reforestation requirements. The landscape plans indicate that the following trees will be planted in 24" box size: One Red Maple, three Pink Crepe Myrtle's, one Scarlet Oak, one Japanese Maple, and two Dwarf Southern Magnolia's. Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: No Impact. All gas and electric services are in place forservice to the homes in this area, with capacity to handle the redevelopment of an existing residence with two new dwellings on two parcels currently occupied by one single family dwelling proposed with the current application. It is likely that there will be only a minimal incremental increase to the use of energy because the new dwellings will comply with current Title 24 requirements, which requires energy efficient construction. Hazards Summary: No Impact. This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its residential nature, this project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. There are no known health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. NPDES Best Management Practices are required to ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways. Noise Summary: No Impact. The site has been occupied by a single family dwelling for many years. With the development of two new single family dwellings on the two existing parcels, there will be little to 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 structures will be compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code, which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. Public Services Summary: No Impact. The project is not expected to have a significant impact on the provisions of other public services, since this is an urbanized area with adequately sized existing public facilities in place. All existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the proposed use. Utilities and Service Systems Summary: No Impact. The subject property contains an existing single family dwelling and therefore has all necessary utilities on-site. To prevent wastewater from contaminating the water supply, a backflow prevention device is required to be installed as per Ordinance Number 1710, effective June 18, 2003. The current solid waste service provider is Recology San Mateo County, which sends solid waste -12- Initial Study Summary 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue collected in Burlingame to the Shoreway Environmental Center and 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 shal! be kept and submitted to the City prior to the final inspection of the project. Aesthetics Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The site currently contains a single-story single family dwelling. The two proposed larger, two-story houses 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 at 1508 Cypress Avenue will cover 34% of the lot and will be 3,894 SF in area. The height, as measured from average top of curb, will be 27'-8" and will be setback 25'-0" from the street. The exterior material will be a stucco finish with clay tile roofing. The detached two-car garage will also have the stucco siding and clay tile roof and will have a wood garage door with a raised panel. The windows will be wood framed with aluminum cladding, simulated true divided lights and wood trim. The proposed house at 1510 Cypress Avenue will cover 34% of the lot and will be 3;889 SF in area. The height, as measured from average top of curb, will be 28'-2" and will be setback 25'-0" from the street. The exterior material will be shingle siding, with an adhered stone veneer at the column bases, wood shutters and a mix of copper roofing and composition shingles. The detached two-car garage will also have the shingle siding and a composition shingle roof and will have a wood garage door with a raised panel. The windows will be wood framed with aluminum cladding, 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 placement of the proposed buildings and landscape plans, views from surrounding properties will be minimally impacted. The most obvious visual change will be from Cypress Avenue where the existing single story house will be replaced with two new two-story facades. The neighborhood consists of a variety of styles, many of which are two-story dwellings. The subject property will be consistent with the development in this area. Cultural Resources Summary: Less Than Significanf Impact. The existing single-story house on the property was built in 1928. 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 Heights) 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. In December 2011, an Historic Resource Evaluation was conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc. that concluded that based upon the State of California Resource Agency's Criteria for a Historical Resource, the residence at 1510 Cypress Avenue retains integrity of location and setting, but that it was "found ineligible for National Register, California Register or Local designation through survey evaluation". Those criteria include: Events for focal 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.: "1510 Cypress Avenue is located on a rectangular-shaped double lot measuring 100' x 150' on the west side of Cypress Avenue between EI Camino Real and Central Avenue. Built in 1928, 1510 Cypress Avenue is a one- -13- Initial Study Summary 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue story-over-partial basement, wood frame, single-family residence designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The building is T-shaped in plan and clad with smooth stucco. It is capped by a combination gable and hip clay tile roof at the front of the property and flat and shed roofs in the rear. The foundation is concrete. Three auxiliary buildings are also located on the lot: a one-story detached garage with a flat roof at the northwest corner of the property, a one-and-a-half-story gable-roofed apartment located immediately south of the garage, and a one- story dressing room/storage shed located west of an in-ground swimming pool. The front of the property is enclosed by a metal fence featuring a regular series of masonry piers. A paved and gated driveway along the north side of the lot accesses the garage. Concrete patios and paths and mature trees are located around the exterior of the building. The primary farade faces east and features four structural bays and a high, stuccoed, wood-frame wall at the south end of the fa�ade. The southernmost structural bay features a large, slightly recessed, fixed, triangular wood-sash window and a tile vent below a gable end of the tile roof. The second structural bay from the south projects out from the rest of the fa�ade. It features a covered entry porch accessible by brick steps from the north, and is capped by a gable end of the iile roof. The porch features a tile floor; iron railings; scrolled arched openings on the north, east, and south sides; and a tile vent. The primary entrance consists of an arched, partially-glazed, flush wood door. The third structural bay from the south features three four-light, wood-sash casement windows with wood trim. This bay terminates in a tile eave. A small patio within low stucco walls is located at the north end of the primary fa�ade. The northernmost structural bay is recessed behind the patio. It is capped by a tile eave and features two three-light, wood-sash casement windows with wood trim, one of which is located in an angled corner. The north fa�ade faces the driveway and a small side yard and features four structural bays, none of which are in the same plane. The easternmost structural bay features two four-light, wood-sash casement windows. The second structural bay from the east features a three-light, wood-sash casement window. These two bays terminate in a tile eave. The third structural bay from the east features an uncovered porch with concrete and wood steps and a wood handrail. It features two six-over-one, wood sash windows with lamb's tongues; a partially-glazed, paneled wood door (likely original); a clay pipe attic vent; and metal coping at the roofline. The westernmost structural bay features a two-light wood-sash window at the basement; five six-over-one, woodsash windows with lamb's tongues; a clay pipe attic vent; and metal coping at the roofline. The rear (west) fa�ade faces the detached garage, apartment, and rear yard and features three structural bays, none of which are in the same plane. The northern structural bay features an uncovered porch with wood steps and handrails that lead up to a paneled door. The bay also features two six-over-one, double-hung wood-sash windows with lamb's tongues and metal coping at the roofline. The central structural bay features one six-over- one, double-hung wood-sash window with lamb's tongues and metal coping at the roofline. The southern structural bay is set back a considerable distance behind a concrete patio and is composed of two distinct portions. The narrow northern portion is clad in stucco, features a sliding aluminum sash window, and terminates in metal coping. The southern portion is a one-story addition with a shed roof that serves as an enclosed sun room. It is clad in horizontal and vertical wood siding and features two sliding aluminum sash windows. Beyond the addition, the top of a stucco wall and tile eave can be seen. This wall, which was once a full-height exterior wall, contains a pair of wood French doors that are likely original. The south farade faces the in-ground swimming pool and features four structural bays. The westernmost structural bay features two six-over-one vinyl sash windows. The second structural bay from the west features two six-over-one vinyl windows and one one-over-one vinyl window. These two bays terminate in metal coping. The third structural bay from the west is the sun room addition; it is clad in vertical wood siding and features a sliding aluminum sash window and a sliding aluminum door. Beyond the addition, the top of a stucco wall with a tile vent and metal coping can be seen. This wall, which was once a full-height exterior wall, contains three six- over-one, wood-sash windows with lamb's tongues that are likely original. The easternmost structural bay, which features a large aluminum sash window with fixed and casement lights, is capped by the gable end of a tile roof. -14- Initial Study Summary 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue A one-story detached garage is located in the northwest corner of the lot and its primary fa�ade faces east. It is rectangular in plan and is capped by a flat built-up roof. The walls are concrete hollow tile. There are two roll-up garage doors. The fa�ade terminates in a pent tile roof with rafter tails. A one-and-a-half-story apartment (originally called a"rumpus room") is located immediately south of the garage; its primary fa�ade faces east. It is rectangular in plan and is capped by a gabled roof with asphalt shingles and a skylight. The east fa�ade is clad in stucco, features a greenhouse window and a French doorwith manufactured wood trim, and terminates in metal coping. The south fa�ade is clad in composite wood siding. It features two sliding steel windows, one of which is flanked by decorative wood shutters, and two sliding vinyl doors. The one-story dressing room/storage shed is located near the southwest corner of the property and abuts a fence along the south property line. It is rectangular in plan and is capped by a shed roof. It is clad in horizontal wood siding. The front (east) farade features two paneled wood doors. The rear (west) fa�ade features two two- light, wood-sash windows and an opening where a door was removed. The house, garage, and apartment appear to be in good condition. The dressing room/storage shed appears to be in poor condition. The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given by Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame's death in 1870, however, the land reverted to Ralston, and eventuallyto Ralston's business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon's trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, EI Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village's population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910 annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame's population had increased to 4,107. The house at 1510 Cypress Avenue was constructed in the Burlingame Heights neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Park and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. These were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Heights is a small three block subdivision bounded by EI Camino Real to the north, Cypress Avenue to the east, and Barroihet and Crescent Avenue to the south. The western boundary is formed by the eastern half of the block bounded by EI Camino Real, Newlands, Crescent, and Howard avenues. On May 18, 1905, the land that would become Burlingame Heights was purchased from the Occidental Land & Improvement Company byAntoine Borel. Within a month, Borel had hired surveyor D. Brofield to subdivide the land and lay out a street grid, and the resulting subdivision map was field with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office on June 3, 1905. Sanborn Map Company fire insurance maps indicate that within the first five years of its creation, Burlingame Heights had begun to develop as a residential area primarily composed of small cottages. -15- Initial Study Summary 9508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue At this time, approximately 25 percent of the lots had been developed, many with houses featuring Craftsman style designs. By 1921, the neighborhood was approximately 50 percent developed, although the western half of Cypress Avenue where 1510 Cypress Street is located included only one residence addressed as 1528 Cypress Avenue (extant). The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom beginning in the early 1920s, and the majority of the residences in Burlingame Heights were completed over the following decade. During this same period, buildings designed with Spanish Colonial Revival influences—most frequently evidenced by the use of red clay tile accents—became immensely popular in California. Many examples were constructed in Burlingame, including 1510 Cypress Avenue, as well as 1500 Cypress Avenue, located immediately to the north, and 1532 Cypress Avenue to the south. The neighborhood also grew denser with the construction of several apartment buildings and flats, mostly concentrated on the north side of the block near EI Camino Real. Generally speaking, most of the neighborhood appears to have been built out prior to World War II, as only two empty lots remain visible on the 1949 Sanborn map. The house at 1510 Cypress Avenue was constructed in 1928 per assessor's records. According to the original plumbing permit, however, water was not turned on at the property until 13 May 1929. According to the permit, the owner was A. (Anton) Metten. Electrical work was contracted to the Mausser Electric Company. The builder is listed as Thomas J. Broderick. According to the 1920 and 1930 censuses, Thomas J. Broderick lived at 1528 Cypress Avenue in Burlingame. Anton Metten (1859-1932) was born in Germany. Census and voter registration records indicate that Metten lived in San Francisco at least from 1882 through 1924 and worked as a tanner. The 1930 census shows him as retired and living at 1510 Cypress Avenue in Burlingame with wife Apollonia, son Leo, daughter Caroline Ostrofe, son-in-law Victor Ostrofe, and two grandsons. The chain of title for the house could not be followed in its entirety. However, known owners of the property and their date of purchase include: Anton Metten (1928); Heroatus Volney "Rotus" Harvey (ca. 1939); Donald Splain (10/1955); Bruno & Angela Freschet (ca. 1967); Naomi Patricia Azzaria (4/25/1975); Martha Schuett, Emilie Johnson (1/21/1982); Yolanda B. Mulato (7/26/1984); Robert L. Grantet. al (10/1/1993); Jean Noblet (7/1/1994); May Jean Noblet Trust (5/26/1998); Carol Walker and Leigh Sippel (6/5/2011); Cypress Avenue Investments, LLC (11 /18/2011). An appraisal report from the San Mateo County Assessor's Office dated 13 March 1956 notes that a 15' x 31' "rumpus room" was added to the south side of the garage in 1947. A 14' x 28' swimming pool was also installed that same year. Also noted is the addition of a"roofed porch" along the south side of the house in 1949. The report further states that a 21' x 7' dressing room located west of the swimming pool was first noted during this appraisal. Subsequent notes in the "remarks" section of the appraisal indicate that another roofed patio (the sunroom) was added directly adjacent to the roofed porch in 1958. In 1977, a permit application to legalize the "rumpus room" room attached to the garage as a mother-in-law apartment was approved by the Burlingame City Council. According to newspaper articles, the building had been purchased in 1975 by Mrs. Naomi Azzaria, who converted the house into a nursing home. This conversion was accompanied by the installation of a new stair and doorway, widened steps, and an update of the electrical service. Additions and alterations since that time have mostly been minor, including a domestic solar hot water system (1985), the installation of a fence (1987), and replacement of the roof, which included replacing the red claytiles (1994)." Based on other construction activity in the area, it is unlikely that any historical relics will be encountered during construction. Should any archeological or historic, cultural, or ethnic resources be discovered during construction, work will be halted until they are fully investigated. -16- Initial Study Summary 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue Recreation Summary: No Impact. The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreationai opportunities forthe Ciry of Burlingame. The site involved in this project is not presently zoned or used for recreational uses. -17- TO: ❑ � SU B7 ECT: NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OfFice of Planning and Research FROM: P.O Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-30�i�E� �N�cr�S�� iN TF� OFFiCE (� TI1E ()6UNTY CLERX RECORDER OF ` suu �.,A�o couvn, cni.� CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Dept. Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Counry Clerk APR 2 4 2012 County of San Mateo 401 County Center, Sixth Floor MARK CHUKCH. County Cferk Redwood City, California 9406�Y - gES� n 1 A �A . JEPU7Y CLERfC Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ND-561-P — 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue — Two New Sinale Family Dwellings and Detached Garages to replace an existing sinqle family dwellinq and detached garage Project Title William Meeker (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The proposal includes demolishing the existing single family dwelling and two detached structures on the property and building two new, two-story single family dwellings and detached two-car garages, one on each of the originally subdivided lots, at 1510 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and detached structures on the site, causing the two existing standard lots to re-emerge. Temporary addresses were assigned to the proposed new houses on each lot; 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue, each lot measuring 7,500 SF (50' x 150'). There are no changes proposed to the existing lot sizes or configuration. The application includes a Conditional Use Permit for re- emergence of two parcels previously merged by a use, Design Review and Side Setback Variance for construction of two new, two- story single family dwellings and detached garages. 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 Heights) 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 although the building retains historic integrity, it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agencx, has approved the above-described project on March 26, 2012 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project [❑will � will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. � A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: Citv of Burlinaame Community Development Department, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010. 3. Mitigation measures [Owere � were not] made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [❑was �was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings (� were ❑ were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final EIR or Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Burlingame Commun� Development Department, PlanningDivision, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. /��,i -� �J � /- //. j .�' j' �i. � / � i iam eeker, Community Development Director STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ,,:;;��-�'��,� !. � i �1 ^ Bay Delta Region �"..;�yi'j,,;�' 7329 Siiverado Trail �•, �?/S Napa, California 94558 H!�� (707) 944-5500 CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination Form Date Submitted: February 14, 2012 Applicant Name: Craig Suhl Applicant Address: Post Office Box 117697, Burlingame, CA 94011 Project Name: Suhl's Home CEQA Lead Agency: City of Burlingame CEQA Document Type: Negative Declaration SCH Number and/or local agency ID Number: N/A Project Location: 1510 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Brief Project Description: This is a single family home and the owner requests to remodel/rebuild due to its age and old condition. This home's address falls within an area the City of Burlingame has determined as possibly having some type of historical significance. The owner had a historical evaluation done by Page and Turnbull, Inc, in December 2011 and it was determined the home is in no way historical and thus does not qualify for placement on the California or National Registers. Describe clearly why the project has no effect on fish and wildlife: This address has no creek or waterway around it that would have any effect on fish and wildlife. It is located approximately 100 feet away from EI Camino Real in an area of all single family homes. There is nothing on this property that would have any effect on anything that would fall under the authority of Fish and Game. Determination: Based on a review of the Project as proposed, the Department of Fish and Game has determined that for purposes of the assessment of CEQA filing fees [F&G Code 711.4(c)] the project has no potential effect on fish, wildlife and habitat and the project as described does not require payment of a CEQA filing fee. This determination does not in any way imply that the project is exempt from CEQA and does not determine the significance of any potential project effects evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Please retain this original determination for your records; you are required to file a copy of this determination with the County Clerk after your project is approved and at the time of filing of the CEQA lead agency's Notice of Determination (NOD). If you do not file a copy of this determination with the County Clerk at the time of filing of the NOD, the appropriate CEQA filing fee will be due and payable. Without a valid No Effect Determination Form or proof of fee payment, the project will not be operative, vested, or final, and any local permits issued for the project will be invalid, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(3). DFG Approval By: �C�'�l� ��'C�C.��r'-' Date: April 17, 2011 Scott Wilson Acting Regional Manager �=J � � �� L � Bay Delta Region �R 17 zo�z CITY OF BURLIiVGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. County of San Mateo Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Mark Church 555 County Center Redwood City� CA, 94063 Finalization 2012027906 4/24/1211:46 am 021 36 Item Title ------------------------------ 1 EIRA EIR Administrative Fee Document ID Amount ------------------------------ DOC# 2012-000072 50.00 Time Recorded 11:46 am ------------------------------ Total 50.00 Payment Type Amount ------------------------------ Check tendered 50.00 # 1014 Amount Due 0.00 THANK YOU PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR RECORDS CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 �� BURLINGAME i,�;��. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division PH: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Interested Individuals From: City of Burlinqame R�� ; �' "'��Fl,,�y Clerk of San Mateo Communitv Development Department Planninq Division MA�' 501 Primrose Road Burlinqame, CA 94010 �Cr4:"d+: Subject: Project Title: Project Location Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (ND-561-P) 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue, Two New Single Family Dwellings and Detached Garages to replace an existing single family dwelling and detached garage 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The proposal includes demolishing the existing single family dwelling and two detached structures on the property and building two new, two-story single family dwellings and detached two-car garages, one on each of the originally subdivided lots, at 1510 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and detached structures on the site, causing the two existing standard lots to re-emerge. Temporary addresses were assigned to the proposed new houses on each lot; 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue, each lot measuring 7,500 SF (50' x 150'). There are no changes proposed to the existing lot sizes or configuration. The application includes a Conditional Use Permit for re-emergence of two parcels previously merged by a use, Design Review and Side Setback Variance for construction of two new, two-story single family dwellings and detached garages. 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 Heights) 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 although the building retains historic integrity, it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby given of the City's intent to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A negative declaration is prepared for a project when the initial study has identified no potentially significant effect on the environment, and there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of an Initial Study, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has prepared a Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010. As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on March 6, 2012. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on March 26, 2012. 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 f�earing to review ti�e proposed Conditional Use Permit for re- emergence of two parcels previously merged by a use, Design Review and Side Setback Variance for construction of two new, two-story single family dwellings and detached garages at 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue, and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been tentatively scheduled for March 26, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: March 6. 2012 INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2. Project Title: 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue, Two New Single Family Dwellings and Detached Garages to replace an existing single family dwelling and detached garage on the site. Lead Agency Name and Address City of Burlingame, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. 4. Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: William Meeker, Community Development Director (650) 558-7250 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cypress Ave. Investments LLC PO Box 117697 Burlingame, CA 94010 Q General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1 APN: 028-294-0?0 8. Description of the Project: The proposal includes demolishing the existing single family dwelling and two detached structures on the property and building two new, two-story single family dwellings and detached two-car garages, one on each of the originally subdivided lots, at 1510 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and detached structures on the site, causing the two existing standard lots to re-emerge. As required by the City of Burlingame, temporary addresses were assigned to the proposed new houses on each lot; 1508 and 1510 Cypress Avenue. Lot 6, or 1508 Cypress Avenue, measures 7,500 SF (50' x 150') and Lot 7, or 1510 Cypress Avenue, measures 7,500 SF (50' x 150'), where the minimum lot size for the area is 5,000 SF. There are no changes proposed to the existing lot sizes or configuration. The proposed house and detached garage at 1508 Cypress Avenue would cover 34% (2,573 SF) of the 7,500 SF lot, where 40% (3,000 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed and would have a total floor area of 3,894 SF (0.52 FAR) where 3,900 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There would be two covered detached parking spaces provided for this six-bedroom house. The proposed house and detached garage at 1510 Cypress Avenue would cover 34% (2,558 SF) of the 7,500 SF lot, where 40% (3,000 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed and would have a total floor area of 3,889 SF (0.52 FAR) where 3,900 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There would be two covered detached parking spaces provided for this six-bedroom house. The application includes a Conditional Use Permit for re- emergence of two parcels previously merged by a use, Design Review and Side Setback Variance for construction of two new, two-story single family dwellings and detached garages. 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 Heights) 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 although the building retains historic integrity, it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the Burlingame Heights Subdivision, in the southern portion of Burlingame west of EI Camino Real. The original house on the parcel (built in 1928), the detached garage, the rumpus room and the detached dressing room 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 City of San Mateo lies one block to the south of the subject property and the Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies two blocks north 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 respcnsible agency. A building permit is required from the Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below wouid 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 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. � � / illiam eeker, munity Development Director Da e Issues and Supporting Information Sources so��es 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 constructior of reptacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 3 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial 5,6,7 X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated 5,6,7 X on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 5,6,7 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 5,6,7 X liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 6 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 5 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, 5,6 7 X or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 5,6 X 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the 5 X use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? -3- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less 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 levei which wou�d 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 ef the 1,15, X site or area, including through the alteration of the 19 course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed 1,15, X the capacity of existing or planned storm water 19 drainage systems or provide substantial additionai 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 Fiood 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, incauding flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,6 X 5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 1,9 X applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 1,9 X existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of 1,9 X any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? � issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,9 X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 1,9 X number of people? 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in 1,15 X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of 15 X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including 1,13 X either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design 14, 15, X feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous 16 intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm • equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 14,16, X 18 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,14 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1,4 X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 1,11 X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian 1,11 X habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 1,11 X protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 1,11 X native or resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? -5- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2 X protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 1,11 X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1 X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important 1 X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a locai 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-yuarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 12 X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 1, 12, X or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 13 two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 1 X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with 1,10 X an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 1 X loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? � Issues and Supporting Information Sources so�r�es 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 VVater Quality Control Board? 19 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 1,15, X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of 19 existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm 1,15, X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing 19 facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 1,15, X project from existing entitlements and resources, or 19 are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,15, X treatment provider which serves or may serve the 19 project that it has adequate capacity to serve the 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) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 1,15 X regulations related to solid waste? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, 1 X but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1,2, X quality of the site ard 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, 20 X significance of a historicai resource as defined in ' 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,20 X significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1,20 X resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 1,20 X outside of formal cemeteries? 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing 1,14 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 1,14 X require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effeci on the environment? 16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental efFects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or 1 X Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1 X Williamson Act contract? � Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially LessThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Involve other changes in the existing environment 1 X which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 1,20 X quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 1 X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future p roj ects )? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will 1 X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? �� Initial Study Summary 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 The City of Burlingame Genera/ Plan, Burlingame, California, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2011 edition. 3 City of Burlingame City Council, 2009-2014 Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California. 4 2010 Census 5 Department af 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 Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. 7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potentia/ from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. 8 Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, September 16, 1981 9 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, May, 2011 10 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 2011 11 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game 12 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998 13 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco Internafional Airport, February, 2012 14 Project plans date stamped February 17, 2012 15 City of Burlingame, Engineering Memos dated February 2, 2012 16 City of Burlingame, Building Department Memos dated February 22, February 9 and January 18, 2012 17 City of Burlingame, Parks Supervisor Memos dated February 15 and January 17, 2012 18 City of Burlingame, Fire Department Memos dated January 18, 2012 19 City of Burlingame, NPDES Memos date stamped January 18, 2012 20 1510 Cypress Avenue Historic Resource Analysis, prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., December 7, 2011 -10- Initial Study Summary 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue Land use and Planning Summary: No Impact. The subject property is currently occupied by a single-story single family dwelling, detached garage and rumpus room. 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 property consists of two lots that are 7,500 square feet each in area. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The project is subject to single family residential Design Review for each lot. The general plan would allow a density of 8 units to the acre and the application is for two replacement units on two 0.2 acre parcels, 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 Heights Subdivision, which abuts the City of San Mateo to the south, and which was included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The surrounding properties are developed with single and multi-family residences, all of which are within the City of Burlingame city limits. The two proposed residences conform to all measurable requirements of the zoning code; however a Conditional Use Permit is required for re-emergence of two parcels previously merged by a use and a Variance is required for side setback to a proposed wing wall along the left side of the house at 1508 Cypress Avenue (0' proposed to wing wall, where 4' is the minimum required). The Planning Commission will review the project and determine compliance with Design Review criteria. Population and Housing Summary: No Impact. This site and the surrounding area are planned for low and medium high-density residential uses. The proposed project of replacing an existing single family dwelling built over two legat parcefs with two new single famity dwellings, one on each parcel, 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 consistentwith the City's Housing Element. The proposed projectwill create only one additional dwelling unit because of building two new dwellings on the two separate parcels that exist under the existing single family dwelling on site. 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 dwellings 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, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability. Water Summary: No lmpact. This is a redevelopment project to replace an existing dwelling with iwo new dwellings on two parcels currently occupied by one single family dwelling. 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 adequa#e 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 of an additional unit on the property and due to the increased driveway area. This added impervious surface will cause a slight increase in storm water runoff, but is considered insignificant given the size of the lots and the remaining pervious areas. Since the site is less than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the state-mandated water conservation program; although water conservation measures as required by the City will be met. Air Quality Summary: No Impact. The proposed application is for replacing an existing single family dwelling built over two legal parcels with two new single family dwellings, one on each parcel, on an existing developed site. While this project will accommodate two larger dwelling units for habitation, the change in emissions is insignificant. The subject property is zoned for low-density residential development and with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction; the proposed project will not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. Demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality -11- Initial Study Summary Management District. 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue Transportation/Circulation Summary: 1Vo Impact. The site is on Cypress Avenue, a local street that provides access 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 two, single-family dwellings meet the on-site parking requirement established in the zoning code. Biological Resources Summary: No Impact. The site currently contains an existing single family residence and two detached structures. There are two existing protected size landscape trees on the properry. The applicant has submitted applications for tree removal permits to the City's Parks Department in order to remove these two existing trees from 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 plans for the project comply with the reforestation requirements. The landscape plans indicate that the following trees will be planted in 24" box size: One Red Maple, three Pink Crepe Myrtle's, one Scarlet Oak, one Japanese Maple, and two Dwarf Southern Magnolia's. 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 residence with two new dwellings on two parcels currently occupied by one single farnily dwelling proposed with the current application. tt is likely that there will be only a minimaf incremental increase to the use of energy because the new dwellings will comply with current Title 24 requirements, which requires energy efficient construction. Hazards Summary: No Impacf. This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its residential nature, this project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. There are no known health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the 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. W ith the development of two new single family dwellings on the two existing parcels, there will be little to 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 structures will be compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code, which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. Public Services Summary: No Impact. The project is not expected to have a significant impact on the provisions of other public services, since this is an urbanized area with adequately sized existing public facilities in place. All existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the proposed use. Utilities and Service Systems Summary: No Impact. The subject property contains an existing single family dwelling and therefore has all necessary utilities on-site. To prevent wastewater from contaminating the water supply, a backflow prevention device is required to be installed as per Ordinance Number 1710, effective June 18, 2003. The current solid waste service provider is Recology San Mateo County, which sends solid waste -12- lnitial Study Summary 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue collected in Burlingame to the Shoreway Environmental Centerand Ox Mountain Landfill. Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractorwill 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 submitted to the City prior to the final inspection of the project. Aesthetics Summary: Less Than Significanf Impact. The site currently contains a single-story single family dwelling. The two proposed larger, two-story houses 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 at 1508 Cypress Avenue will cover 34% of the lot and will be 3,894 SF in area. The height, as measured from average top of curb, will be 27'-8" and will be setback 25'-0" from the street. The exterior material will be a stucco finish with clay tile roofing. The detached two-car garage will also have the stucco siding and clay tile roof and will have a wood garage doar with a raised panel. The windows will be wood framed with aluminum cladding, simulated true divided lights and wood trim. The proposed house at 1510 Cypress Avenue will cover 34% of the lot and will be 3,889 SF in area. The height, as measured from average top of curb, wiil be 28'-2" and will be setback 25'-0" from the street. The exterior material will be shingle siding, with an adhered stone veneer at the column bases, wood shutters and a mix of copper roofing and composition shingles. The detached two-car garage will also have the shingle siding and a composition shingle roof and will have a wood garage door with a raised panel. The windows will be wood framed with aluminum cladding, 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 placement of the proposed buildings and landscape plans, views from surrounding properties will be minimally impacted. The most obvious visual change will be from Cypress Avenue where the existing single story house will be replaced with two new two-story facades. The neighborhood consists of a variety of styles, many of which are two-story dwellings. The subject property wiil be consistent with the development in this area. Cultural Resources Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The existing single-story house on the property was built in 1928. 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 Heights) 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. In December 2011, an Historic Resource Evaluation was conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc. that concluded that based upon the State of California Resource Agency's Criteria for a Historical Resource, the residence at 1510 Cypress Avenue retains integrity of location and setting, but that it was "found ineligible for National Register, California Register or Local designation through survey evaluation". Those criteria include: Events for local significance as a resource; Persons as a resource associated with the lives of persons importantto local history; Architecture that "embodies the distinctive characteristics of a time and period"; and Information Potential. The following is an excerptfrom the Historic Resource Evaluation thatwas conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc.: "1510 Cypress Avenue is located on a rectangular-shaped double lot measuring 100' x 150' on the west side of Cypress Avenue between EI Camino Real and Central Avenue. Built in 1928, 1510 Cypress Avenue is a one- -13- Initial Study Summary 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue story-over-partial basement, wood frame, single-family residence designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The building is T-shaped in plan and clad with smooth stucco. It is capped by a combination gable and hip clay tile roof at the front of the property and flat and shed roofs in the rear. The foundation is concrete. Three auxiliary buildings are also located on the lot: a one-story detached garage with a flat roof at the northwest corner of the property, a one-and-a-half-story gable-roofed apartment located immediately south of the garage, and a one- story dressing room/storage shed located west of an in-ground swimming pool. The front of the property is enclosed by a metal fence featuring a regular series of masonry piers. A paved and gated driveway along the north side of the lot accesses the garage. Concrete patios and paths and mature trees are located around the exterior of the building. The primary fa�ade faces east and features four structural bays and a high, stuccoed, wood-frame wall at the south end of the fa�ade. The southernmost structural bay features a large, slightly recessed, fixed, triangular wood-sash window and a tile vent below a gable end of the tile roof. The second structural bay from the south projects out from the rest of the farade. It features a covered entry porch accessible by brick steps from the north, and is capped by a gable end of the tile roof. The porch features a tile floor; iron railings; scrolled arched openings on the north, east, and south sides; and a tile vent. The primary entrance consists of an arched, partially-glazed, flush wood door. The third structural bay from the south features three faur-light, wood-sash casement windows with wood trim. This bay terminates in a tile eave. A small patio within low stucco walls is located at the north end of the primary fa�ade. The northernmost structural bay is recessed behind the patio. It is capped by a tile eave and features two three-light, wood-sash casement windows with wood trim, one of which is located in an angled corner. The north fa�ade faces the driveway and a small side yard and features four structural bays, none of which are in the same plane. The easternmost structural bay features two four-light, wood-sash casement windows. The second structural bay from the east features a three-light, wood-sash casement window. These two bays terminate in a tile eave. The third structural bay from the east features an uncovered porch with concrete and wood steps and a wood handrail. It features two six-over-one, wood sash windows with lamb's tongues; a partially-glazed, paneled wood door (likely original); a clay pipe attic vent; and metal coping at the roofline. The westernmost structural bay features a two-light wood-sash window at the basement; five six-over-one, woodsash windows with lamb's tongues; a clay pipe attic vent; and metal coping at the roofline. The rear (west) fa�ade faces the detached garage, apartment, and rear yard and features three structural bays, none of which are in the same plane. The northern structural bay features an uncovered porch with wood steps and handrails that lead up to a paneled door. The bay aiso features two six-over-one, double-hung wood-sash windows with lamb's tongues and metal coping at the roofline. The central structural bay features one six-over- one, double-hung wood-sash window with lamb's tongues and metal coping at the roofline. The southern structural bay is set back a considerable distance behind a concrete patio and is composed of two distinct portions. The narrow northern portion is clad in stucco, features a sliding aluminum sash window, and terminates in metal coping. The southern portion is a one-story addition with a shed roof that serves as an enclosed sun room. It is clad in horizontal and vertical wood siding and features two sliding aluminum sash windows. Beyond the addition, the top of a stucco wall and tile eave can be seen. This wall, which was once a full-height exterior wall, contains a pair of wood French doors that are likely original. The south farade faces the in-ground swimming pool and features four structural bays. The westernmost structural bay features two six-over-one vinyl sash windows. The second structural bay from the west features two six-over-one vinyl windows and one one-over-one vinyl window. These two bays terminate in metal coping. The third structural bay from the west is the sun room addition; it is clad in vertical wood siding and features a sliding aluminum sash window and a sliding aluminum door. Beyond the addition, the top of a stucco wall with a tile vent and metal coping can be seen. This wall, which was once a full-height exterior wall, contains three six- over-one, wood-sash windows with lamb's tongues that are likely original. The easternmost structural bay, which features a large aluminum sash window with fixed and casement lights, is capped by the gable end of a tile roof. -14- Initial Study Summary 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue A one-story detached garage is located in the northwest corner of the lot and its primary fa�ade faces east. It is rectangular in plan and is capped by a flat built-up roof. The walls are concrete hollow tife. There are two roll-up garage doors. The fa�ade terminates in a pent tile roof with rafter tails. A one-and-a-half-story apartment (originally callzd a"rumpus room") is located immediately south of the garage; its primary fa�ade faces east. It is rectangular in plan and is capped by a gabled roof with asphalt shingles and a skylight. The east farade is clad in stucco, features a greenhouse window and a French doorwith manufactured wood trim, and terminates in metal coping. The south fa�ade is clad in composite wood siding. It features two sliding steel windows, one of which is flanked by decorative wood shutters, and two sliding vinyl doors. The one-story dressing room/storage shed is located near the southwest corner of the property and abuts a fence along the south property line. It is rectangular in plan and is capped by a shed roof. It is clad in horizontal wood siding. The front (east) fa�ade features two paneled wood doors. The rear (west) fa�ade features finro iwo- light, wood-sash windows and an opening where a door was removed. The house, garage, and apartment appearto be in good condition. The dressing room/storage shed appears to be in poor condition. The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given by Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres ta Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame's death in 1870, however, the land reverted to Ralston, and eventually to Ralston's business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon's trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, EI Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village's population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910 annexed the adjacenttown of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame's population had increased to 4,107. The house at 1510 Cypress Avenue was constructed in the Burlingame Heights neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Park and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. These were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Heights is a small three block subdivision bounded by EI Camino Real to the north, Cypress Avenue to the east, and Barroihet and Crescent Avenue to the south. The western boundary is formed by the eastern half of the block bounded by EI Camino Real, Newlands, Crescent, and Howard avenues. On May 18, 1905, the land that would become Burlingame Heights was purchased from the Occidental Land & Improvement Company by Antoine Borel. Within a month, Borel had hired surveyor D. Brofield to subdivide the land and lay out a street grid, and the resulting subdivision map was field with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office on June 3, 1905. Sanborn Map Company fire insurance maps indicate that within the first five years of its creation, Burlingame Heights had begun to develop as a residential area primarily composed of small cottages. -15- Initial Study Summary 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue At this time, approximately 25 percent of the lots had been developed, many with houses featuring Craftsman style designs. By 1921, the neighborhood was approximately 50 percent developed, although the western half of Cypress Avenue where 1510 Cypress Street is located included only one residence addressed as 1528 Cypress Avenue (extant). The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom beginning in ihe early 1920s, and the majority of the residences in Burlingame Heights were completed over the following decade. During this same period, buildings designed with Spanish Colonial Revival influences—most frequently evidenced by the use of red clay tile accents—became immensely popular in California. Many examples were constructed in Burlingame, including 1510 Cypress Avenue, as well as 1500 Cypress Avenue, located immediately to the north, and 1532 Cypress Avenue to the south. The neighborhood also grew denser with the construction of several apartment buildings and flats, mostly concentrated on the north side of the block near EI Camino Real. Generally speaking, most of the neighborhood appears to have been built out prior to World War II, as only two empty lots remain visible on the 1949 Sanborn map. The house at 1510 Cypress Avenue was constructed in 1928 per assessor's rzcords. According to the original plumbing permit, however, water was not turned on at the property until 13 May 1929. According to the permit, the owner was A. (Anton) Metten. Electrical work was contracted to the Mausser Electric Company. The builder is listed as Thomas J. Broderick. According to the 1920 and 1930 censuses, Thomas J. Broderick lived at 1528 Cypress Avenue in Burlingame. Anton Metten (1859-1932) was born in Germany. Census and voter registration records indicate that Metten lived in San Francisco at least from 1882 through 1924 and worked as a tanner. The 1930 census shows him as retired and living at 1510 Cypress Avenue in Burlingame with wife Apollonia, son Leo, daughter Caroline Ostrofe, son-in-law Victor Ostrofe, and two grandsons. The chain of title for the house could not be followed in its entirety. However, known owners of the property and their date of purchase include: Anton Metten (1928); Heroatus Volney "Rotus" Harvey (ca. 1939); Donald Splain (10/1955); Bruno & Angela Freschet (ca. 1967); Naomi Patricia Azzaria (4/25/1975); Martha Schuett, Emilie Johnson (1/21/1982); Yolanda B. Mulato (7/26/1984); Robert L. Grantet. al (10/1/1993); Jean Noblet(7/1/1994); May Jean Noblet Trust (5/26/1998); Carol Walker and Leigh Sippel (6/5/2011); Cypress Avenue Investments, LLC (11 /18/2011). An appraisal report from the San Mateo County Assessor's Office dated 13 March 1956 notes that a 15' x 31' "rumpus room" was added to the south side of the garage in 1947. A 14' x 28' swimming pool was also installed that same year. Also noted is the addition of a"roofed porch" along the south side of the house in 1949. The report further states that a 21' x 7' dressing room located west of the swimming pool was first noted during this appraisal. Subsequent notes in the "remarks" section of the appraisal indicate that another roofed patio (the sunroom) was added directly adjacent to the roofed porch in 1958. In 1977, a permit application to legalize the "rumpus room" room attached to the garage as a mother-in-law apartment was approved by the Burlingame City Council. According to newspaper articles, the building had been purchased in 1975 by Mrs. Naomi Azzaria, who converted the house into a nursing home. This conversion was accompanied by the installation of a new stair and doorway, widened steps, and an update of the electrical service. Additions and alterations since that time have mostly been minor, including a domestic solar hot water system (1985), the installation of a fence (1987), and replacement of the roof, which included replacing the red clay tiles (1994)." Based on other construction activity in the area, it is unlikely that any historical relics will be encountered during construction. Should any archeological or historic, cultural, or ethnic resources be discovered during construction, work will be halted until they are fully investigated. �i[•y.' Initial Study Summary 1508 & 1510 Cypress Avenue Recreation Summary: No Impact. The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it dispiace 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. -17-