The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1532 Burlingame Avenue - Environmental DocumentCALIFORNIA FISNS � WILD�IFE � State of California - Department of Fish and Wildlife 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT DFW 753.5a (Rev. 09/13) RECEIPT# ^ � � -7 � � �E I STATE CLEARING HOUSE#(�fapP�icab�e) [� Local PublicAgency ❑ School District ❑ OtherSpecial District ❑ StateAgency ❑ Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: �Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $3,029.75 $ Mitigated/Negative Declaration (MND)(ND) $2,181.25 $ � ❑ Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board only) $850.00 $ ❑,Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs (CRP) $1,030.25 $ �CountyAdministrative Fee $50.00 $ �LJ - ��' �Project that is exempt from fees ❑ Notice of Exemption (attach) �. CDFW No Effect Determination (attach) ❑ Other $ PAYMENTMETHOD: �-{ ,��1 � ❑ Cash � Credit � Check ❑ Other TOTAL RECEIVED $ J�J •^ SIGNATURE TITLE �� -PROJECTAPPLICANT YELLOW-CDFW/ASB PINK-LEADAGENCY GOLDENROD-COUNTYCLERK coo uicTo� �rr�n��c n�� ocv�oco Tvoc n� ocuiTri onoi v I ' NOTICE OF DETERMINATION �� // P.O Box 3044ning and Research �e �� C mmun ty DeveG pment Dept. Sacramento, California 95812-3044 �AN �iA'j'�O �('j�r��l�nning Division 501 Primrose Road �Q� 13 ��i� Burlingame, CA 94010 County Clerk ,vg'' K CHURCH, 'c�unt� Ci�r� County of San Mateo � 401 County Center, Sixth Floor ��"`�� F n"\`�` ��_, ,T`! CL_.RK Redwood City, California 94063 � , ,� t� SUB7ECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ND-576-P — 1530 Burlingame Avenue — Addition to Single Family Dwelling and New Detached Garage Project Title Ruben Hurin (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 1530 Burlingame Avenue, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The proposal is to remove an existing carport and trellis and add onto the first and second floors of an existing single family dwelling at 1530 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house would have a total floor area of 3,448 SF (0.48 FAR) where 3,627 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing attached carport will be demolished and replaced with a new detached one-car garage (10' wide x 20' clear interior dimensions), which will provide one code compliant covered parking space; one uncovered space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. 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 1530 Burlingame Avenue is eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3(Architecture/Design) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction using State of California DPR 523A and 523B forms. The proposed project was evaluated according to the Sec�etary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and was found to comply with all applicable Standards. It was determined that the proposed new construction would be compatible with the existing residence and the overall integrity and historic character of the properly would be retained. As a result, the proposed project would not create an impact on the residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue for the purposes of CEQA. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead AgencX, has a�proved the above-described project on Qctober 14, 2014 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, Planning Division, 501 Primrose Road1 " 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 De�artment, Planning Division, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. �� _ � November 13, 2014 Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Date � STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Govemor � DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Bay Delta Region -"" 7329 Silverado Trail �`' " Napa, California 94558 (707) 944-5500 CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination Form Date Submitted: September 26, 2014 Applicant Name: Christopher and Meaghan Schaefer Applicant Address: 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Name: 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Addition to Existing Single Family D�rrelling and New Detached Garage CEQA Lead Agency: City of Burlingame CEQA Document Type� Negative Declaration SCH Number and/or local agency ID Number: N/A Project Location: 1530 Burlingame Avenue, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Brief Project Description: The proposal includes a first and second story addition to the existing single-family dwelling and replacing an existing attached carport with a new detached garage at 1530 Burlingame Avenue in the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, zoned R-1. The proposed house and detached garage would cover 29% (2,077 square feet) of the 7,209-square-foot lot, where 40% (2,884 square feet) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,448 square feet (0.48 FAR) where 3,628 square feet (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a first- and second-story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Describe clearly why the project has no effect on fish and wildlife: The project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop belovr self-sustaining levels, threate� to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangsred plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any potential short-term increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less than significant level, as described throughout the Initial Study. � In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No project specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified. .�� -�- � ��: OC � 2 i 7n�.< V.-! C11Y OF BURL(NGAt41E �De-p!-�NNING DIV � Determination: Based on a review of the Project as proposed, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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). CDFW Approval By: �L6� ��t;GC•�5�-- Date: October 23, 2014 Scott Wilson Regional Manager Bay Delta Region County of San Mateo Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Mark Church 555 County Center Redwood City� CA, 94063 Finalization 2014069100 11 /13/1410:13 am 022 58 Item Title ------------------------------ 1 EIRA EIR Administrative Fee Document ID Amount ------------------------------ DOC# 2014-000272 50.00 Time Recorded 10:13 am ------------------------------ Total 50.00 Payment Type Amount ------------------------------ Check tendered 50.00 # 3457 Amount Due 0.00 , THANK YOU PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR RECORDS TO: ❑ � NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Office of Planning and Research FROM: CITY OF BURLINGAME P.0 Box 3044 Er�DO;SED �r,��=orF�cEo�Tf�ECommunity Development Dept. Sacramento, California 95812-3044 C0`'�,ti 1Eoco�En01cA��nning Division 501 Primrose Road ��V � �3 Z��it Burlingame, CA 94010 County Clerk County of San Mateo 401 County Center, Sixth Floor Redwood City, California 94063 ��ARK CHURCI-i, Count Clerk E3y \/ERQfVIGf� 'JEPUTY �LERf� SUB7ECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ND-576-P — 1530 BurlinQame Avenue — Addition to Single Family Dwelling and New Detached Garage Project Title Ruben Hurin (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submiited to Clearinghouse) 1530 BurlinQame Avenue, Citv of BurlinQame, San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The proposal is to remove an existing carport and trellis and add onto the first and second floors of an existing single family dwelling at 1530 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house would have a total floor area of 3,448 SF (0.48 FAR) where 3,627 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing attached carport will be demolished and replaced with a new detached one-car garage (10' wide x 20' clear interior dimensions), which will provide one code compliant covered parking space; one uncovered space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. 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 1530 Burlingame Avenue is eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3(Architecture/Design) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction using State of California DPR 523A and 5236 forms. The proposed project was evaluated according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and was found to comply with all applicable Standards. It was determined that the proposed new construction would be compatible with the existing residence and the overall integrity and historic character of the property would be retained. As a result, the proposed project would not create an impact on the residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue for the purposes of CEQA. This is to advise that the Citv of Burlinqame, the Lead AaencX,. has approved the above-described project on October 14. 2014 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, 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: Citv of Burlingame, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 501 Primrose Road. Burlingame, CA 94010. � n �J - —"° -� November 13 2014 Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Date County of San Mateo Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Mark Church 555 County Center Redwood City� CA, 94063 Finalization 2014069100 11 /13/1410:13 am 022 58 Item Title ------------------------------ 1 EIRA EIR Administrative Fee Document ID Amount ------------------------------ DOC# 2014-000272 50.00 Time Recorded 10:13 am ------------------------------ Total 50.00 Payment Type Amount ------------------------------ Check tendered 50.00 # 3457 Amount Due 0.00 THANK YOU PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR RECORDS � STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Bay Delta Region =��' 7329 Silverado Trail � �� , p Napa, California 94558 (707) 944-5500 CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination Form Date Submitted: September 26, 2014 Applicant Name: Christopher and Meaghan Schaefer Applicant Address: 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Name: 1530 Burlingame P.venus, Addition te Existing Sinyle Family Dwelling and New Detached Garage CEQA Lead Agency: City of Burlingame CEQA Document Type: Negative Declaration SCH Number and/or local agency ID Number: N/A Project Location: 1530 Burlingame Avenue, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Brief Project Description: The proposal includes a first and second story addition to the existing single-family dwelling and replacing an existing attached carport with a new detached garage at 1530 Burlingame Avenue in the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, zoned R-1. The proposed house and detached garage would cover 29% (2,077 square feet) of the 7,209-square-foot lot, where 40% (2,884 square feet) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,448 square feet (0.48 FAR) where 3,628 square feet (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a first- and second-story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Describe clearly why the project has no effect on fish and wildlife: The project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wi�dlife population to drop belov� self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any potential short-term increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less than significant level, as described throughout the Initial Study. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No project specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified. � �� a�.. � � OCT 2 7 2Q'� C�TY �F BURLINGAME CDp-PL.ANNING DIV � Determination: Based on a review of the Project as proposed, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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). CDFW Approval By: �L6� /�t�-S�--- Date: October 23. 2014 Scott Wilson Regional Manager Bay Delta Region CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 k, ci�v '`rf .� i .��i�:_, � -0�o�. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division PH: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 i`�,� �, k, u�. r �+ �'�k'� < , n,.': �E�F' � � 2014 ` � °� n�a�sw�c�� NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAR94"TiI�C��I' � To: Interested Individuals From: Citv of Burlin�ame Countv Clerk of San Mateo Communitv Development Department Plannin� Division 501 Primrose Road Burlin�ame, CA 94010 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-576-P) Project Title: 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Addition to Existing Single Family Dwelling Project Location: 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The proposal includes a first and second story addition to the existing single family dwelling and replacing an existing attached carport with a new detached garage at 1530 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house and detached garage would cover 29% (2,077 SF) of the 7,209 SF lot, where 40% (2,884 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,448 5F (0.48 FAR) where 3,628 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is subject to CEQA because on based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. An historic survey has been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that it is not eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places. In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby given of the City's intent to adopt a 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 September 24. 2014. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the end of the 20-day review on October 14. 2014. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination set forth in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing to: City of Burlingame Community Development Department — Planning Division. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period described above. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1530 Burlingame Avenue, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been tentatively scheduled for October 14. 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: September 24. 2014 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 1530 BURLINGAME AVENUE INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. Project Title: 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Addition to Existing Single Family Dwelling and New Detached Garage 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. 4. 5 Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: R-1 William Meeker, Community Development Director (650) 558-7250 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 Chris and Meaghan Schaefer 1530 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Low-Density Residential APN: 028-283-070 8. Description of the Project: The proposal includes a first and second story addition to the existing single family dwelling and replacing an existing attached carport with a new detached garage at 1530 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house and detached garage would cover 29% (2,077 SF) of the 7,209 SF lot, where 40% (2,884 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,448 SF (0.48 FAR) where 3,628 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The new detached garage (10'-0" x 20'-0" clear interior dimensions) would provide one covered parking space for the proposed four-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. A Historic Resource Evaluation (Part I) was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., date stamped June 19, 2014. The results of the evaluation concluded that 1530 Burlingame Avenue is eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3(Architecture/Design) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction using State of California DPR 523A and 5236 forms. The evaluation concluded that the building is significant as an excellent example of Craftsman-style residential architecture constructed within the early-twentieth-century residential subdivision of Burlingame Park. Therefore, the residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue is considered a historic resource under the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA). ' Page & Turnbull prepared an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed addition under the Secretary of the Interior's Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and pursuant to CEQA, dated September 11, 2014 (Part II). The proposed project was evaluated according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and was found to comply with all applicable Standards. Proposed new construction would be compatible with the existing residence and the overall integrity and historic character of the property would be retained. As a result, the proposed project would not create an impact on the residence at 1530 Burlingame Avenue for the purposes of CEQA. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the Burlingame Park No. 2 Subdivision, in the southern portion of Burlingame west of EI Camino Real. The original house on the parcel (built in approximately 1915) remains on the property today. All of the properties in this subdivision, as well as neighboring subdivisions were included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. This area is made up entirely of single family residential properties. The Town of Hillsborough lies two blocks to the west of the subject property and the Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies one block to the east of the subject property. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: There are no permits required from other public agencies. However, San Mateo County is a responsible agency. A building permit is required from the Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division. Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Environmental Impacts Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources � Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation /Traffic ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. � I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ;� I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the osed project, nothing further is required. September 24, 2014 Signature Date William Meeker Citv of Burlin�ame Printed Name For � Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue _ . __.. ... .. . .__.�__._ .,_...�.-._ .. ....... .. . . . . . .�........ ._ .---- ..... •LessThan... . . __ ..,.. - .--- . . . _ _.._.. Significant or Signijicont Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Signi�cant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS Wouid the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway7 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � Tha site currently contains a two-story single family dwelling and attached carport. The proposed project consists of adding 350 SF to the existing first floor along the rear and right side of the house and adding 390 SF to the existing second story at the rear of the house. The project also includes replacing the existing single-car carport along the right side of the house with a new detached single-car garage at the rear of the lot. The project is subject to residential Design Review to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed house and detached garage would cover 29% (2,077 SF) of the 7,209 SF lot, where 40% (2,884 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,448 SF (0.48 FAR) where 3,628 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The height of the proposed addition, as measured from average top of curb to top of roof ridge, will be 28'-9" where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed. The �rst and second story addition will be setback 56'-1" and 57'-4", respectively, from the rear property line where 15'-0" is the minimum required to the first floor and 20'-0" is the minimum required to the second floor. Exterior materials on the existing house include an asphalt shingle roof, painted shingle siding, wood eave brackets and a brick chimney. The proposed exterior materials on the first and second floor addition would match the existing house. 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 relatively modest scale of the addition, its placement at the rear of the house, and one new landscape tree (two existing landscape trees to remain), views from surrounding properties will be minimally impacted. The r.eighborhood consists of a variety of styles, most of which are one and two-story dwellings. The subject property will be consistent with the development in this area. While the increase in habitable living area from the project has the potential to generate an incremental increase in light generated on the site compared to existing conditions, the project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area since the house would be screened by other existing houses and existing and proposed vegetation and trees. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required 5 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Sources . . _ .. _ __... . _ The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 — Electrical Code, Burlingame, California, 2010 edition. Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. Site Visit, September, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. 0 : ❑ Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue . � „_.._.,__._ ._._ ._......� �._ _�, ._.._.. .._ __.� _.. .: .. _ ...._._. _ .. . _.. _ ._...- _ _. _ .. . . LessThan�.._ .. .. .__._. .. _. _. _ __ . � ___..... ....._ . _--.. Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Suaportin4 Information Sourcesl: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the projed: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or � � � � Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ❑ ❑ ❑ � a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ � � which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site does not include active agricultural uses, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use and would have no effect on farmland or any property subject to a Williamson Act contract. Mitigation Measures: None Required Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. 7 G Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue � Less Than Signi�cant or Significant Potentially with Less Ti►an Signifitant Mitigation Slgnl�cant Issues (and Supportinq Informatlon Sources): Impact Incorporotion Impact No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ � � � applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ � � � substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) d) e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � Discussion The proposed application is for construction of a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling and a new detached single-car garage. While this project will accommodate a larger dwelling unit for habitation, the change in emissions is insignificant. The subject property is zoned for low-density residential development and with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction, the proposed project will not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. Demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012. 8 Initial Study .. .. _. . ._.._._ _. . . . . _._,_LessThan Signijicant or Signi�cant Potentially with Significant Mitigation Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impott Incorporation 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the.California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected wetlands, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biologicai resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1530 Burlingame Avenue Cess Than Significant Impad Nolmpact ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ■ ►1 The site currently contains an existing single family residence and attached carport. There are two existing landscape trees on the �roperty, including 4-inch diameter Japanese Maple tree in the front yard and a multi- trunk (6 and 12-inch diameter) Glossy Privet tree in the rear yard; these existing trees are proposed to remain. In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with a single-family residence is required to provide a minimum of one, 24-inch box-size minimum, non-fruit tree, for every 1,000 SF of habitable space. With the proposed project, a total of three landscape trees (existing and new) are required on the subject property. The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements. The landscape plan indicates that the one, 24-inch box size Japanese Maple tree will be planted in the front yard. Mitigation Measures: None Required. � �� Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue _Sources _. . City of Burlingame, Parks Division Memoranda, dated July1, 2014 and May 9, 2014. The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Title 25 —Zoning, Burlingame, California Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game. Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. This space intenrionally left blank. 10 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Istues (and SuppoRing Informatfon Sources): 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Wouid the project: Significant or Potenfially Significont Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectiy destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic . feature? d) Disturb any human remains, includingthose interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion Less Than - � - Significant with Less Than Mitigotion Significant Intorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � No Impact � ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation (Part I) was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., date stamped June 19, 2014. The results of the evaluation concluded that 1530 Burlingame Avenue is eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3(Architecture/Design) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. Page & Turnbull prepared an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed addition under the Secretary of the Interior's Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and pursuant to CEQA, dated September 11, 2014 (Part II). The results of the analysis concluded that "as designed, the proposed project would comply with eight Standards (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10); Standards 6 and 7 are not applicable to the proposed project." The analysis noted that ��the proposed project would primarily affect secondary fa�ades, however, and overall it would be compatible with the residence's character-defining form, materials, and features to the extent that it would not harmfully distract from the original construction. Consequently, the proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation:' The following is an excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation that was conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc.: "The following analysis applies each of the applicable Standards for Rehabilitation to the proposed project at 1530 Burlingame Avenue. This analysis is based upon the proposed designs by Stewart Associates, dated 24 June 2014, as submitted to Page & Turnbull by the City of Burlingame. 11 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Rehabilitation Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use thaf�equires "" -'" -� minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Discussion: The building at 1530 Burlingame Avenue was constructed as a single-family residence, and it does not appear to have served any additional purpose during its history. It will continue to be used as a single-family house; the proposed project would create additional interior bedroom and kitchen space, thus supporting its original residential use. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 1. Rehabilitation Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. Discussion: The proposed project would involve the removal of historic materials, particularly in areas where the rear and side additions are planned. Large areas of the existing exterior wall and wood shingle cladding would be removed from the northeast and northwest fa�ades in order to accommodate proposed additions. Likewise, five original wood brackets would be removed from underneath the bargeboard of the rear fa�ade. Existing additions on the rear fa�ade, however, are not considered significant, and most windows and doors located in exterior areas planned for demolition are not original to the residence. Four original wood-sash, nine-over-one windows—two located in the east half of the northeast fa�ade, and a pairing on the southwest fa�ade—would be replaced by new windows with eight-light configurations. The character-defining features that would be removed are not located on the residence's primary fa�ade, and the proposed project would not remove the residence's most visible areas of shingle cladding, wood brackets, and wood-sash windows. The construction of an addition that projects from the residence's northeast fa�ade may alter the impression of the house's solid, front-gabled massing. While the addition would project less than 4' from the fa�ade, its gabled roof would form a cross gable that would add observable bulk to the residence. Although some materials and features which contribute to the character of the building would be removed, the building would still convey its historic character in spite of these alterations. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 2. Rehabilitation Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties, will not be undertaken. Discussion: Proposed new construction has been designed to replicate the original design and materials of the residenc� at 1530 Burlingame Avenue. The fabric of the addition would include wood shingle cladding and decorative wood brackets identical to those original features found on the existing building. New roof slopes on the gables of the planned addition would match the slopes of the roof of the original residence. Likewise, the garage that is proposed for the north corner of the lot would employ design features that are characteristic of Craftsman-style residential architecture from the main house's date of construction: namely, exposed rafter tails, wood shingle siding, and wood brackets. However; the proposed project would not include elements from other historical properties and would not interfere with the building's ability to be recognizable as a Craftsman-style residence constructed during the early twentieth century. The proposed garage, however, would stand in the same location and would conform to the same architectural style as the original garage. It may not be clear, therefore, that the proposed garage would be a recent addition to the property. In spite of this issue, it is anticipated that the majority of elements of the 12 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue proposed project would be discernible as recent alterations. Therefore, the proposed project- is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 3. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Discussion: The residence has experienced several previous alterations. These alterations include the construction of the attached carport and rear additions; the installation of new windows and doors on the northwest and northeast fa�ades; and the construction of the rear pool equipment shed. The residence was determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources for its embodiment of the Craftsman architectural style from the time it was constructed; therefore, no subsequent alterations to the building are considered to have acquired significance in their own right. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 4. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples,of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Discussion: The proposed project would result in the removal of certain materials and features that are characteristic of the Craftsman architectural style, for which the residence at 1530 Burlingame is a significant example. These features include wood shingle cladding, decorative brackets, exposed rafter tails, and wood-sash windows. The proposed project would not affect the most visible of these elements from the public right-of-way, and alterations would not overwhelm the building's existing material palette. As a result, the residence would continue to be characterized by its original materials and features. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 5. Rehabilitation Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Discussion: The proposed project does not appear to involve the repair or replacement of deteriorated or missing features. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 6. Rehabilitation Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Discussion: It is not anticipated that the proposed project would involve the use of chemical or physical treatments that may affect the residence's character-defining features. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 7. Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Discussion: Excavation work would be required during the construction of the proposed rear addition and garage. If any archaeological material is encountered during this project, construction should be halted and the City of Burlingame's standard procedures for treatment of archaeological materials should be adhered to. If standard procedures are followed in the case of an encounter with archaeological material, the proposed project would comply with Rehabilitation Standard 8. 13 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Rehabilitation Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new constructfon will not" destroy `" '' historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and environment. Discussion: As previously discussed, the proposed project would involve new construction and alterations that would result in the removal of historic, character-defining features from the exterior of the residence. Most of the affected features, however, are located on the front fa�ade or the most publically visible portions of the residence; proposed changes would not eliminate the most prominent examples of features that characterize the design of the property. Proposed new construction—including the new garage—is designed to imitate the Craftsman-style architectural elements that characterize the residence. The proposed addition and garage would feature wood-shingle siding, exposed rafter tails underneath eaves, and decorative brackets that are identical to elements that are original to the residence. These considerations ensure that new construction would be compatible in style with the existing building, but they may also result in some confusion over which elements are original. The addition, however, would be differentiated from the original volume of the building by its arrangement of eight-light windows, which provide a contrast to the residence's original nine-over-one, two-sash windows. As windows on the northeast fa�ade of the addition would be visible from the sidewalk, it is anticipated that the addition would be recognizable by the trained eye as a non- original component of the residence. Therefore, the proposed project generally complies with Rehabilitation Standard 9. Rehabilitation Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Discussion: The proposed side and rear addition would require a substantial amount of the residence's exterior wall to be demolished. This includes the entire rear fa�ade, although much of this fa�ade has already been heavily altered due to a series of previous additions. Approximately half of the historic fabric on the northeast fa�ade would be removed. If the proposed addition would be removed from the residence in the future, the building's integrity would not be negatively affected. As the addition would not be located on the primary fa�ade, its removal in the future would not affect the essential form of the property; in fact, it would restore the residence's original roof form. In the case that the addition is removed, therefore, the residence would still convey its essential, character-defining form and would still retain the most visible examples of its historic features and materials. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 10. As designed, the proposed project would comply with eight Standards (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10). Standards 6 and 7 are not applicable to the proposed project. The proposed alterations to the northeast, northwest, and southwest fa�ades would result in the removal of character-defining features (namely original wood-sash windows, wood-shingle cladding, wood brackets, and exposed rafter tails), would add some bulk to the massing of the residence, and would not be substantially differentiated from the house's existing fabric. The proposed project would primarily affect secondary fa�ades, however, and overall it would be compatible with the residence's character-defining form, materials, and features to the extent that it would not harmfully distract from the original construction. Consequently, the proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. 14 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue ..-. . This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic �- district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth- century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood's eligibility as a historic district:' Based on relevant archaeological reports for the immediate area, there are no known cultural resources associated with the site and the proposed project will not create any cultural impacts to the affected area. Project related construction activities involving ground-disturbance during construction could result in significant impacts, if any unknown culturally significant sites are discovered. If remains were unearthed during project construction, damage to or destruction of significant archaeological remains would be a potentially significant impact. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains and/or traces of prehistoric plant and animal life exclusive of human remains or artifacts. Fossil remains, such as bones, teeth, shells, and wood, are found in geologic deposits (rock formations). The project vicinity has been developed and no known paleontological resources have been recorded. Because the proposed project would result in minimal excavation in bedrock conditions, significant paleontologic discovery would be unlikely. However, significant fossil discoveries can be made even in areas of supposed low sensitivity. The site has no known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. However, it is impossible to be sure about the presence or absence of human remains on a site until site excavation and grading occurs. The proposed project requires additional excavation for the building's slab foundation, therefore there is a low likelihood that human remains will be encountered. Mitigation Measures: Potential impacts to archeological resources would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5a. In the event a paleontological resource is encountered during project activities, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5b would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. In the event human remains are encountered during project activities, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5c would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 5a: In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a quali�ed archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out. 15 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue � Mitigation Measure 5b: If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth; shell, tracks, ` "�" "`� trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame. Mitigation Measure 5c: If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California's Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Historical Resource Evaluation (Part I) prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., date stamped May 24, 2014. 1530 Burlingame Avenue, Historical Resource Evaluation (Part 11J prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., date stamped September 11, 2014. 16 0 e Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue .._...._._._ ._... ..._. . LessThan ._ 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, inciuding the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impatt Incorporation Impact No Impact b) c) d) e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion � � � �❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �� ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ��/1 The site is flat and located in a semi-u�ban 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 addition to the single family residence will comply with current California Building Code seismic standards. The site is approximately two miles from the San Andreas Fault. The project will be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 17 0 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue .. Sources _ _ _. .. The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps, http://�is.abag.ca.�ov/website/liquefactionsusceptibilitv/, accessed March, 2014. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet3, 1:125,000, 1981. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Domage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated July 3, 2014 and May 8, 2014. Project Plans date stamped August 6, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. 18 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Issues (and Suppvrting Information SourcesJ: 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion Cess Than Signifitant Potentially with Less Than Signifitant Mitigotion Significant Impact Inco�poration Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Nolmpad � � Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards. SFBAAB's nonattainment status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact on air quality would be considered significant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of Signi�cance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant. The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are: ■ For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projec*s include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities. ■ For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e. Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the screening criteria, 19 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue then the project's air quality impacts may be considered less tfian significant. For single family dwellings, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes) set a screening threshold of 56 dwelling units for any individual single family residential project. The proposed project would be comprised of one unit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD's 2010 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD Homepage, accessed May 2012). As such, lead agencies need to determine appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Lead agencies may rely on the BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures. However, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project's significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air District's 1999 Thresholds of Significance and to make determinations regarding the significance of an individual project's air quality impacts based on substantial evidence in the record for that project. For this analysis, the City of Burlingame has determined that the BAAQMD's significance thresholds in the updated May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for project operations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are the most appropriate thresholds for use to determine air quality impacts of the proposed Project. First, Burlingame has used the May 2011 BAAQMD thresholds in previous environmental analyses under CEQA and found them to be reasonable thresholds for assessing air quality impacts. In addition, these thresholds are lower than the 1999 BAAQMD thresholds, and thus use of the thresholds in the May 2011 CEQA Guidelines is more conservative. Therefore, the city concludes these thresholds are considered reasonable for use in this analysis. In this case, the proposed project includes one unit. Given that the proposed project would fall well below the 56 dwelling units threshold specified in BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for single family residential development, it is not anticipated that the project will create significant operational GHG emissions. Climate Action Plan. Burlingame's Climate Action Plan is designed to focus on near- and medium-term solutions to reduce its emissions. These program and policy recommendations were developed after careful consideration of the unique characteristics and demographics of the Burlingame community and the major sources of emissions from Burlingame's Community Greenhouse Inventory. The five major focus areas include: energy use/green building, transportation/land use, solid waste, education/outreach and municipal programs. Energy efficiency and green bu�'.ding programs provide the fastest and most economical means to reduce emissions. The proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Burlingame's Green Building Ordinance. Verification of compliance with Section A5.203.1.1 Tier 1(15% above Title 24) of the Green Building Ordinance or LEED Silver shall be accepted as the methods of ineeting compliance with this ordinance. By complying with the Green Building Ordinance, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment nor woulcl it conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 20 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue ._ .._ . _ Sources _ . _ . . _ . . ... ___ . _ . . __ . _ : _ . . . . . . . ..... ..... .. _ .. , _ . __. Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2011(Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes). City of Burlingame, Climate Action Plan, Burlingame, California, June, 2009. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated July 3, 2014 and May 8, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. 21 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Issues (and Support7ng Information Sources): 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, wouid the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion ' less Than SignT�cant or Slgnlficant Potentlolly with Less Than Signifitant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporatlon Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 Gode requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. NPDES Best Management Practices are required to ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 22 � Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue _. _ . Sources: . . _ _ . _ _ The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, February 16, 2012. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. 23 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Less Than Signifitant or Sig»ijicant Potentially with Less Than Significont Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Incorporatlon Impact No Impact 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste � � � � discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or � � � � interFere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering ofthe local groundwatertable levei (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of � � � � the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the � � � � , site or area, including through the alteration of the - course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would � � � � exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? � � � � g) h) i) 1) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federai Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a S00-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood fiows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including fiooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � � // This project includes a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and a new detached garage on the lot. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway. The project site is shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agenc�s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Pane) No. 06081C0153E. The site is located in Flood Zone X, which is outside the 100-year flood zone, and is not a Special Flood Hazard Area. Zone X is described as an area of moderate risk to flooding (outside of the 100-year flood but inside the 500-year flood limits) (determined to be within the limits of one percent and 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain). The ground floor of the project is proposed to be constructed about 3'-9" above average top of curb (elevation 32.03'). The subject property is relatively flat, and all of the surface water will be required to drain to the street frontage. As required by the Public Works Department — Engineering Division, roof and surface water will not be allowed to drain onto adjacent properties. Water will either be absorbed by soft landscaping or be collected and directed out to the street (see storm drain discussion above). e 24 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue ... 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 a minimum increase to the amount of impervious surface area on the lot since the first floor addition and new detached garage would be built where there currently exists paving; the extended driveway is proposed to be constructed using crushed granite (pervious material). Since the site is less than five acres, the project is not subject to the state-mandated water conservation program; although water conservation measures as required by the City will be met. The domestic potable water supply for Burlingame and the proposed project area is not provided by groundwater sources, but rather from surface water sources maintained by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Groundwater would not be used to supply water for the project, and no dewatering of the site is anticipated. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. The project proponent will be required to ensure that all contractors implement BMP's during construction. This project is subject to the state mandated Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance; compliance will be determined by approval of a complete Ou�door Water Use Efficiency Checklist, and landscape and irrigation design plans at time of the building permit application. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002,1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 26, Chaprer26.16—Physical Design of Improvements, Burlingame, California. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, October 16, 2012. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated May 7, 2014. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated May 6, 2014. Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. 25 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Issues (and Supporting Informotion Sources): 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (inciuding, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion Less Thon Significant or Significont Potentlolly with Less Than Signl�cant Mitlgotlon Significant Impact Incorporation lmpad ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact � � � The subject property is currently occupied by a two-story single family dwelling and attached carport. The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 SF for lots in this area, based on City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712. This existing lot is 7,209 square feet in area and is not part of a proposed subdivision or lot adjustment. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The project is subject to single family residential Design Review. The general plan woufd allow a density of eight units to the acre and the application is for one unit on 0.17 acres, a density of six units per acre. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The subject property is within the Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 2, which abuts the Town of Hillsborough to the west, and which was included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences, all of which are within the City of Burlingame city limits. The existing single family dwelling is a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District. The project would not result in a fundamental conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on land use and planning. The proposed residence conforms to all measurable requirements of the zoning code. The Planning Commission will review the project and determine compliance with Design Review criteria. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. 26 n Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue . less Than - _ _ Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than SigniFcant Mitigation Signi�cant Issues (and Supporting Informotion SourtesJ: Impact Incorporation lmpact No Impoct 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral � � ❑ � resource that would be of value to xhe region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- � � � � important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion � According to the San Mateo County General Plan, Mineral Resources Map, the project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. San Mateo County, General Plan, October 18, 2010. 27 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Issues (and Supporting Informatlon SourcesJ: 12. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantiai temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Signi�cant or Significant Potentia!!y with Less Than SJgnificant Mitigation Signi�cant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project a rea to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, � would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impoct � � � � � � The surrounding area has been occupied by single family dwellings for many years. With the addition to the existing single family dwelling, there will be no significant increase to the ambient noise level in the area. The noise in the area will be general residential noise such as vehicles coming to and from the house, sounds from the residents when using the backyard and noises from putting out garbage cans. The new structure will be compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. Construction of the proposed addition to the h�use will not require pile driving or other significant vibration causing construction activity. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code, which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. In addition, the site is located outside the designated noise-impacted area from San Francisco International Airport. The project does not include any permanent operational activity that would result in excessive or perceptible vibration, and the operational impact of the project on increased vibration levels would be less than significant. 28 • Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Mitigation Measures: None Required. � � � Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated July 3, 2014 and May 8, 2014. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. This space intentionally left blank. 29 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directiy (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion Less Than Significant or Significont Potentially with Less Thon Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporotlon Impad ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � � No Impad � � � This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density residential uses. The proposed addition to the existing single family dwelling conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element. The proposed project will not create any more housing because it is an addition to an existing single family dwelling on the same parcel. Since the subject property contains a single family dwelling, the project would not displace existing housing or people. A new road, extension of a roadway or other infrastructure is not required for the single family dwelling and therefore the project would not induce substantial population growth. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on population and housing. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 2010. 30 � � Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Significant or Potentially Signi�cant Impact Less Thon - Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Signifitant Impact No Impact 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ /1 /1 /1 //, /1 Discussion The subject property is located within the City of Burlingame jurisdiction. The proposed project includes enlarging an existing single family dwelling on the site, which represents an insignificant increase in the total population of the City. Therefore, existing public and govemmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the existing residential unit. Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which also serves the Town of Hillsborough. Three stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road. As part of the permitting process, the Central County Fire Department would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city fire safety regulations. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional demand for fire protection services, and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities, the project's potential impact on fire protection services would be less than significant. Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department, located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project consists of enlarging an existing single family dwelling. Therefore, the project would not result in an increased demand for police services or require the expansion or construction of police facilities. The project's potential impact on police services would be less than significant. Students in the City of Burlingame are served by two school districts: Burlingame School District (BSD) for grades K-8 and San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for grades 9-12. The proposed project would not add any additional residential units, and there will be no increase in the number of potential bedrooms in the dwelling. Therefore it is anticipated that the potential number of school-age children would not increase, or only increase slightly. Any students generated by the project would be accommodated by the existing capacity of the two districts, resulting in a less than significant impact. 31 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue The City of Burlingame is served by several parks and recreation facilities, including 13 parks and playgrounds, an aquatic center, and a golf and soccer center. Since there would be no increase in the number of residential units, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other public facilities and therefore the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memoranda, dated May 5, 2014. City of Burlingame Website, www.burlin�ame.or� This space intentionally left blank. 32 1 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue _ . .. _ . Less Than _ . . Signi�cant or Significan! Potentially with Less Than Signifitant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sourtes): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 15. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ � neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreationai facilities or ❑ ❑ ❑ � require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The sites involved in this project are not presently zoned or used for recreational purposes. Since the proposed project consists of enlarging an existing single family dwelling, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other recreation facilities. Therefore, impacts to recreation would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 33 0 Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Slgnificant or Potentially Signi�cant Issues (and SuppoRing Information SourcesJ: Impad 16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ❑ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion Cess Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Signi�cant Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � � � No Impoct � � � � /1 /� ►1 The site is on Burlingame Avenue, a collector 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 increaseto traffic or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities. With the addition, there will be no increase in the number of potential bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached carport will be demolished and replaced with a new detached one-car garage (10' wide x 20' clear interior dimensions), which will provide one code compliant covered parking space. One uncovered space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. The proposed project meets the off-street parking requirement established in the zoning code. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012 s t Project plans date stamped August 6, 2014. 34 , . Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Issues fand Supportina Information SourcesJ: 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Significont or Less Than Potentially Significan! with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporation a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or resu It in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projec�s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cess Than Significant Impact No Impatt ❑ � a � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ■ /1 The subject property is currently occupied by a single family dwelling. Water is provided to the subject property by an existing 4-inch cast iron pipe along Burlingame Avenue. The existing residence is connected to an existing 6-inch sewer main along Burlingame Avenue. To prevent flooding a backflow prevention device is required to be installed. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street frontage, where it will flow along Burlingame Avenue to a catch basin o EI Camino Real. The City Engineer has indicated that there is adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage systems to accommodate the addition to the house. Therefore, the project's impact to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant. The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems. All new utility connections to serve the site and that are affected by the development will be installed to meet current code standards; sewer laterals from the main on the site to serve the new structure will be checked and replaced if necessary. The current solid waste service provider is Recology, which hauls waste collected in Burlingame to the San Carlos Transfer Station and the Recyclery of San Mateo County for sorting then disposal at Ox Mountain Landfill. Demand for solid waste disposal services generated by the project could be adequately served by existing capacity at the transfer station and landfill and the project would comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. 35 r � Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractor would be ""� �� required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream and transport and recycle the construction waste separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid waste generated during operation of the project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated May 7, 2014. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated May 6, 2014. Recology San Mateo County, www.recolo�vsanmateocountv.com , site accessed September, 2014. Project Plans date stamped August 6, 2014. 36 .,. • Initial Study 1530 Burlingame Avenue lssues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? ("Cumulative considerable" means that the incremental efFects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion Significant or -- Less Than Potentlal/y Signi�cant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Signi�cant Impact Incorporafion Impoct ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � No Impoct L�� ❑ � ❑ � The project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any potential short-term increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less than significant level, as described throughout the Initial Study. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project-speci�c effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identi�ed. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project will not have significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 37