Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 East Carol Avenue - CEQA DocumentInitial 11 East Caroi Avenue 11 EAST CAROL AVENUE INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. Project Title: 11 East Carol Avenue, first and second story additions to an existing single family residence 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Nurnber: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: R-1 City of Burlingame, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 William Meeker, Community Development Director (650)558-7250 11 East Carol Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 Patrick and Brittney Aitken 11 East Carol Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Low-Density Residential APN: 028-302-160 8. Description of the Project: The proposal is to add first and second story additions to the existing two story single family dwelling on site at 11 East Carol Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing detached garage on site will not be altered. The proposed new structures would cover 36�Yo (2,138 SF) of the 6,000 5F lot, where 40% (2,400 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,372 SF (0.56 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing detached garage provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed six-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a second story addition to the existing house. 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. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the Glenwood Park Subdivision, in the southern portion of Burlingame, west of EI Camino Real. The original house on the parcel (built in 1921) remains on the property today, though it has been added to and remodeled. All of the properties in this subdivision, as well as neighboring subdivisions, were included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The properties immediately behind the subject property and adjacent to EI Camino Real are multifamily residential properties. The remaining properties surrounding the subject site to the west, east, and south, are single family residential properties. The Town of Hillsborough lies a half mile to the south and the City of San Mateo lies a half a block to the east of the subject praperty. Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies 0.2 miles northwest 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, euilding Division. This space intentionally left blank. 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 ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation / Traffic DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance � 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 proposed project, nothing further is required. ',� � Signature William Meeker Printed Name March 8, 2016 Date Citv of eurlin�ame For Initial Study Slgnlflcont or Potenfially Slgnlflcont lssues (and SupporNng Informotlon SourtesJ: Impatt 1. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 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 area7 Discussion 11 East Carol Avenue Less Thon Signlflcant wlth Less Than Mitlgation SlgnlJicant lncorporatlon lmpoct Nolmpact ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The subject site is a rectangular-shaped lot that measures 50 feet by 120 feet. The existing house is a two story single family dwelling. There is a detached garage at the rear, right side of the lot. The proposed project consists of a first story addition at the rear of the house and enlarging the existing second story. The project is subject to residential Design Review to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed house would cover 36� (2,138 SF) of the 6,000 SF lot, where 409'0 (2,400 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,372 SF (0.56 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing height as measured from average top of curb is 23'-4". The height of the addition will be 30'-0", where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed. The house will be set back 21'-5" from the front property line where 19'-11" is the minimum required. Exterior materials on the proposed house include a stucco finish with board and batten siding detail, a shingle roof, and wood corbels and trim. No work is proposed to the existing detached garage. The garage accommodates two vehicles, one vehicle in the single-car bay with a garage door at the right side and one vehicle in the carport area on the left side. 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 existing tress and those proposed to be planted on site, views from surrounding properties will be minimally impacted. The neighborhood consists of a variety of styles, most of which are two-story dwellings. The subject property will be consistent with the development in this area. While the project has the potential to generate an incremental increase in light generated on the site compared to existing conditions, the project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that 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 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, Municippl Code, Title 18, Chapter 28.16— Electrical Code, Burlingame, California, 2010 edition. Project plans date stamped February 8, 2016. Initial Study 11 East Carol Avenue less 7han SIgn1/icant or Slgnijlcant Potentlalty with Less Than Slgnlflcant MitlgaHon SignffJcant Issues (and Supporting InJormatlon SourcesJ: Impoct Incorporatlon Impoct 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 5ite Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or � � � � Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or � � � � a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment � � � � which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site does not include active agricultural uses, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use and would have no effect on farmland or any property subject to a Williamson Act contract. Mitigation Measures: None Required Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Project plans date stamped February 8, 2016. City of Burlingame, Municipol Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. � Initial Study 11 East Carol Avenue Less Than Slgnlflcant or Slgnificont Potentlally with Leu Than Slgnlflcant Mitigatlon SIgnlJlcant Issues (ond Supporting InfwmaHon SourcesJ: lmpact lncorporatlon Impatt 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 followfng determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the � � � � applicable air quality planl b) Violate any air qualiry standard or contribute � � � � substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicabie federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantlal pollutant concentrations? e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � �� �I The proposed application is for first and second story additions to an existing two story house with a detached 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-densiry residential development and with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction, the proposed project will not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. Demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of eurlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012. 7 Initial Study Signlf7tont or PotenHalfy Signlficont hsues (and SupportJng lnformotlon SourcesJ: Impact 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 Californfa Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife 5ervice? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian � habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or bythe 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 biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservatlon plan? Discussion Less Than Slgntjlcant with Less Than Mltlgatlon Signfflcant lncorporatlon lmpacY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ u ❑� 11 East Carol Avenue No Impact � � � � � � The site currently has an existing single family residence and detached garage. There are several existing trees on site, including one Redwood tree at the rear, left corner of the lot that meets the definition of a protected-size tree. 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,Q00 SF of habitable space. The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements. The landscape plan indicates that three new landscape trees will be planted on the property, including 2, 24-inch box size Cherry Plum (or similar) trees in the front setback and 1, 36-inch box size Crape Myrtle in the rear yard. There are 2 existing landscape trees on site that will remain. One of these trees is a protected-size Redwood located at the rear, left corner of the lot. The proposed paving in the rear yard will be 17 feet from the base of this tree and the proposed construction will be 25 feet from the base of this tree. Standard tree protection measures are required to be in place and inspected by the City Arborist prior to any construction or demolition on the site. Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources 11 East Carol Avenue The City of Burlingame Genera! Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25—Zoning, Burlingame, California Map of Areas of Special Biological lmportance, San Frpncisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game. Project plans date stamped February 8, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. Initial Study Signlflcant or PotenHally SlgnlfJtant Jssues (and Supporting lnformoNon SourcesJ: lmpptt 11 East Carol Avenue less Than Slgnlflcont wlth less Than Mitlgatlon 51gnJjlcant Incorporation lmpoct No lmpact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proJect: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature7 ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ � d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion ❑ ❑ � ►�1 The subject property is located within the Glenwood Park 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 Pla�es. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., and dated December 15, 2015. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria. Those four criterion include Events, Persons, Architecture and Information Potential. The following is an excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation that was conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc.: "The residence at 11 East Carol Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed locally. The house at 11 East Carol Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Constructed in 1921, the building does convey contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Glenwood Park and the surrounding suburbs. However it is not among the earliest homes in the neighborhood, nor does it appear especially influential in the overall development of the neighborhood. It is one of many residence of similar size and style constructed during the 1920s- 1930s building boom in this area and is not individually representative, nor significant, within this historic context. Therefore the property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. 10 Initial Study 11 East Carol Avenue 11 East Carol Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under Criterion 2(Persons) Research has not revealed any association with people significant in local, state or national history. The most prominent owners and occupants of the subject property were the Watson's. While William Watson Jr.'s position as San Mateo County's first building inspector is notable, there is insufficient information available to ascertain any individual impact to the county's development. Other shorter-term owners do not appear to be significant within a larger historical context. Research does not indicate that former owners have risen to a level of significance at the local, state, or national level such that the property would be individually eligible for listing under Criterion B/2. 11 East Carol Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The architect and builder are currently unknown, so it cannot be said to be the work of a master at this time. It is an example of the typical scale and modest design constructed in the neighborhood in the 1920s. It reflects a Tudor Revival/English Cottage style prevalent among revival styles in the neighborhood with the half-hipped treatment at the roof and half timbering. However, the building does not exhibit enough notable architectural details to constitute a particularly outstanding or distinctive example of Tudor Revival/English Cottage style, and it does not appear to be an influential or noteworthy example of residential construction in the neighborhood. For these reasons, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion C/3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 11 East Carol Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4(Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. The house at 11 East Carol Avenue has undergone few major alterations and prominent additions have been constrained to the rear fayade. The building has undergone several interior remodels and repairs to portions of the first floor and crawlspace due to termite damage. At an unknown date, the shed-roofed volume was added to the rear fa�ade. The building still conveys its original design and character and retains integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. The house has not been moved and retains integrity of location. It continues to be used as a single-family residence within a dominantly residential neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood of one to two- story residences has retained the design characteristics of the Glenwood Park subdivision and many houses appear to be relatively unaltered. Therefore, 11 East Carol Avenue retains integrity of setting and association. For these reasons, the building retains integrity. 11 East Carol Avenue was constructed in 1921 during an early wave of the building boom of residential subdivision in an around Glenwood Park. The building as undergone some minor alterations and additions, which are mostly confined to the rear fa�ade, interior, and foundations. No significant events are associated with the property, nor is it considered to be an outstanding example of Tudor Revival/English Cottage style architecture in the area. Longtime owners, the Watsons, and later occupants do not rise to sufficient levels of individual significance. Therefore, the California Historical Resource Status (CHRSC) of "6Z" has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was "found ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or local designation through survey evaluation. 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 Glenwood Park as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood's eligibility as a historic district." 11 Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources 11 East Carol Avenue The City of 8urlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 11 East Carol Avenue, Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated December 15, 2015 This space intentionally left blank. 12 Initial Study lssues (and Supponing Informotlon SourtesJ: 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the projett: a) Expose people or structures to potentlal substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including Iiquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, su6sidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined In Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property7 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion Signlflrnnt or Potentlolly Slgnifltont lmpatt ❑� Less Than Slgnlficont with Mklgatlon Incorporation ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 East Carol Avenue Less Than 5lgnijfcant fmpact No Impatt �� �/ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The site has a less than 25% slope and is located in a semi-urban setting which has been developed with single family residential dwellings for the last 100 years, with most of the lots in vicinity 6,000 SF in area. There will be less seismic exposure to people and equipment than at present, since the remodeled areas and additions 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. 13 Initial Study Sources 11 East Carol Avenue The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps, http://gis.abas.ca.�ov/website/lipuefactionsusceptibilitv/, accessed March, 2014. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Son Francisco Bay Reqion, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1981. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated December 7, 2015 and January 28, 2016. Project Plans date stamped February 8, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 14 Initial Potentlally SFgnlf►cant luues (ond Supporting Info�mation SourcesJ: Imppct 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the pro)ect: 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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards. SFBAAB's nonattainment status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact on air quality would be considered significant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it 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 projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities. For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e. Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If 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 sc�eening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the screening criteria, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. For single family dwellings, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality 11 East Carol Avenue Less Than Sipnlfirnnt with Less Than Mitigatlon Slgnlflcant Intorporatlon Impact No fmpact 15 Initial Study il East Carol Avenue 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 201z). 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 projecYs significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air DistricYs 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 building programs provide the fastest and most economical means to reduce emissions. The proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Burlingame's Green Building Ordinance. Verification of compliance with Section A5.203.1.1 Tier 1(15% above Title 24) of the Green Building Ordinance or LEED Silver 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 would it conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 16 Initial Study Sources 11 East Carol Avenue Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2011 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes). City of Burlingame, Climate Action Plan, Burlingame, California, June, 2009. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated December 7, 2015 and January 28, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 17 Initial Study Slgn(fltant w Potentialfy SlgnffJcan[ lssues (and Supporting Info�matlon SourcesJ: Impact 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materfals, 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 complled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Slgniflcant with Mltigallon Incorporallon ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 East Carol Avenue Less Thon SignlJicanr tmpact No lmpoct ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its residential nature, this project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. There are no known health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. NPDES Best Management Practices are required to ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 18 Initial Sou rces: 11 East Carol Avenue The City of Burlingame Genera! PJan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. State of California Hazardous Woste and Substances Sites List, February 16, 2012. San Maieo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Progrpm, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped February 8, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 19 Initial Study 11 East Carol Avenue Leu Than Slpnlfltant or 5lgnlflcant Potenilafty wlth Less Than Slynlflcant Mltigation Slg��cant lssues (and Supporting Injormatlon SourcesJ: Impact Incorporotlon 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 of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of � � � � the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site7 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 dralnage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff7 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? � � � � g1 h) i) J) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-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 flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or daml Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow7 Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � �� /1 The proposed project is first and second story additions totaling 640 square feet to an existing single family dwelling a detached garage on the tot. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway. The project site is located in Flood Zone X, which is outside the 100-year flood zone. The site is tied into existing water main and lines which have adequate capacity to serve the existing building. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street. There will be an insignificant increase to the amount of impervious surface area due to the increase in the footprint of the proposed structures and driveway width. This added impervious surface will cause a slight increase in storm water runoff, but is considered insignificant given the size of the lot and the remaining pervious areas. Since the site is less than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the state-mandated water conservation program; although water conservation measures as required by the City will be met. 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. 20 Initial Study 11 East Carol Avenue Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. The project proponent will be required to ensure that all contractors implement BMP's during construction. This project is subject to the state mandated Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance; compliance will be determined by approval of a complete Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist, and landscape and irrigation design plans at time of the building permit application. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 26, Chapter 26.16 — Physical Design of Improvements, Burlingame, California. E. erabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in Son Moteo 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 Memoranda dated December 10, 2015 and February 8, 2016. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memorandum dated December 7, 2015. Project plans date stamped February 8, 2016. 21 Initial Study Issues (and Supporttng Info�matlon SourcesJ: 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 11 East Carol Avenue Less Than S7gntjicant or Signiflcont PotenNally wlth Less Than SJgniflcant MlHgotfon Signf�tant lmpoct Incorporation Impoct No Impact n b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or � regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation � plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussfon ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � The subject property is currently occupied by a two- story single family dwelling and detached garage and the proposed project will add 640 SF of floor area to the site. The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF for lots in this area, based on City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712. This existing lot is 6,000 square feet in area and is not part of a proposed subdivision or lot adjustment. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot and one secondary dwelling unit meeting minimum requirements per lot in this area. The project is subject to single family residential Design Review. The general plan would allow a density of eight units to the acre and the application is for one replacement unit on 0.14 acres, a density of 7.26 units per acre. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The subject property is within the Glenwood Park subdivision, which abuts the Town of Hillsborough to the south and the City of San Mateo to the East, and which was included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The surrounding properties to the west, east and south are developed with single family residences, and the properties to the north are developed with multifamily residences, all of which are within the City of Burlingame city limits. The proposed single family dwelling is a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District. The project would not result in a fundamental conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on land use and planning. The proposed residence conforms to 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 Plpn, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. Project plans date stamped February 8, 2016. 22 Initfal Study 11 East Carol Avenue Less Than Signif(cant w Slgnlflcant PotenHally wlth Less Than Slgniflcont MJtigatlon Slpnlflcont Issues (ond Supporting !n/ormation Sources): Impacf lncorporptlon lmpod !Vo Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proJect: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral � � � � resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state7 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 Mpteo County Genera! 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, Genera! Plan, October 18, 2010. This space intentionally left blank. 23 Initial Study Significant or Potentla0y Slgnlfitant Issues (pnd Supporting Informatlon Sourcesj: lmpact 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 agencies7 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 substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels7 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the projed area to excessive noise levels7 Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Thcn SJgnlficant wlth Mltigat7on Incorpo�atlon ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a 11 East Carol Avenue Less Thon S/gnlJlcanr fmpptt No Impact ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ■ ►� The surrounding area has been occupied by single family dwellings for many years. With the proposed additions to the existing 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. Construction of the proposed dwelling will not require pile driving or other significant vibration causing construction activity. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code, which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. In addition, the site is located outside the designated noise-impacted area from San Francisco International Airport. The project does not include any permanent operational activity that would result in excessive or perceptible vibration, and the operational impact of the project on increased vibration levels would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 24 Initial Study City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California. 11 Easi Carol Avenue City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated December 7, 2015 and January 28, 2016. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped February 8, 2016. This space intentiona!!y left blank. 25 Initial Study ---- _ 11 East Carol Avenue Less Than Signlftcant or Slgnlflcont PotenHally wiih Less Than S(gn)ficant Mitigotlon Slgn!)itant Issues (ond Supporting lnformotlon SourcesJ: Impatt Incorporotlon Impact No Impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce su6stantial population growth in an area, � � � � efther directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, � � � � necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, � � � � necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density residential uses. The proposed additions to the existing single family dwelling conform to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and do 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. 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 woutd 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 February 8, 2016. The City of Bu�lingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, Cityof eurlingame, Burlingame, California, 2010. 26 Initial Study Issues (ond Supporting lnfwmatlon Sources): 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 facllities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, respanse times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection7 iii) Schools7 iv) Parks? v) Other pubiic facilities? SlgnificoM or Potentiolly SiqniJlcant fmpact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Slgnlf)cont wlth Mltlgatlon IncorporotJon ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ less Than Slgnif)cant lmpatt ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 East Carol Avenue No lmpact /�� /1 /�1 ►ZI /1 Discussion The subject property is located within the City of Burlingame jurisdiction. The proposed project includes an addition to a single family dwelling, which represents an insignificant increase in the total population of the City. Therefore, existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the proposed residential unit. Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which also serves the Town of Hillsborough. Three stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road. As part of the permitting process, the Central County Fire Department would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city fire safety regulations. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional demand for fire protection services, and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities, the project's potential impact on fire protection services would be less than significant. Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department, located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project consists of replacing single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling. Therefore, the project would not result in an increased demand for police services or require the expansion or construction of police facilities. The 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; it is anticipated that the potential number of school-age children would not increase or only increase slightly. Therefore, any students generated by the project would be accommodated by the existing capacity of the two districts, resulting in a less than significant impact. 27 Initial Study 11 East Carol 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 December 10, 2015. City of Burlingame Website, www.burlineame.or¢ This space intentronally left blank. 28 Initial Study 11 East Carol Avenue Less Thon Signiflcant or Slgniflcan[ PotenHalty with Less Than SlgnljJcont Mltlgation Slpnlflcont lssues (and Supporting !n/ormation Sourtes): Impaa lncorporallon 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 recreational facilities or � � � � require the construction or expansion of recreatfonal 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 an addition to 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. This space intentionalJy left blank. 29 Initial Study Less Thon Slgnifkantw SlgnJflcant PofenffaJly wlth 5lgnffltont Mltlgotlon hsues (and Supporting lnformatlon SourcesJ: Impact IncorposoHon 16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Would the projed: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in � relation to the existing traffic load and capacity ofthe street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to- capacity ratlo 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 result 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)7 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity7 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or progrems supporting alternative transportatlon (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion 11 East Carol Avenue Less Than Slgnlflcont lmpact No Impact ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The site is on East Carol Avenue, a side street connecting to other collector streets that provide access to EI Camino Real, a regional arterial. This project will not create an increase in the traffic generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any temporary incremental increase to traffic or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities. The existing dwelling has four potential bedrooms and this number will be increased to six potential bedrooms with the proposed additions to the dwelling. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing detached garage provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed six-bedroom house. 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 Genera! Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 -Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. 30 Initial Study 11 East Carol Avenue San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012 Project plans date stamped February 8, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 31 Initial Study 17. UTIIITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS would the projett: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the constructlon of new water or wastewater treatment facllities 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 supplfes 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 commitments7 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projecYs solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste7 Discussion Signylcont or Less Thpn PotenGally Slynl/lcant wlth SipnJfJcant Mltlgatlon Impact Incorporatfon ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 East Carol Avenue Less Than Slgnlficant Impact No Impatt ❑ � O � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � 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 East Carol Avenue. The proposed residence will be connected to an existing 8-inch polyvinyl chloride sewer main along East Carol 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 East Carol Avenue to Carol Avenue and then to catch basins at the intersection of Carol Avenue, Cypress Avenue, and 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 new house. Therefore, the project's impact to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant. The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems. All new utility connections to serve the site and that are affected by the development will be installed to meet current code standards; sewer laterals from the main on the site to serve the new structure will be checked and replaced if necessary. The current solid waste service provider is Recology, which hauls waste collected in Burlingame to the San Carlos Transfer Station and the Recyclery of San Mateo County for sorting then disposal at Ox Mountain 32 Initial Study 11 East Carol Avenue 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. 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 Memoranda dated December 10, 2015 and February 8, 2016. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memorandum dated December 7, 2015. Recology San Mateo County, www.recolo�vsanmateocountv com , site accessed April, 2014. Project Plans date stamped February 8, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 33 Initial Study lssues (and Supporting Injwmatfon 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 wildllfe 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 oranimal or eliminate importantexamples ofthe major periods of Californla 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 Signl/lcont or Leu Than Potentla!!y SlgnifJcanf wlth Slgnifitant Mltlgotlon lmpact IncorporaHon ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 East Carol Avenue Cess Than SignJjlcant Impact No Impoct ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any potential short-term increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less than significant level, as described throughout the Initial Study. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project will not have significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 34 �" NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ❑ Office of Planning and ResearCh FROM P.0 Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812���p ,N��d���n �� S� MA7�0 �CiIiPJ vOC b�P � �ounty Clerk JUL 2 7 2016 County of San Mateo 555 County Center #1 �AR��������� ��'rk Redwood City, California 94063 y e�;� - �� � CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Dept. Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 SUB7ECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ND-589 -P — li East Carol Avenue — First and Second Story Additions to an existinq single-family residence Project Title , William Meeker (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 11 East Carol Avenue, City of BurlingameF San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The proposal is to add first and second story additions to the existing two story single family dwelling on site at 11 East Carol Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing detached garage on site will not be altered. The proposed new structures would cover 36% (2,138 SF) of the 6,000 SF lot, where 40% (2,400 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,372 SF (0.56 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing detached garage provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed six-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a second story addition to the existing house. 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 (Glenwood Park) may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. An historic survey has been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that although the building retains historic integrity, it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a Iocal historic resource. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above-described project on March 28, 2016 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 Plannina 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 [Owas �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 BurlingameR Community Develo,pment Department, Planning Division, 501 Primrose William Meeker, Community Development Director Date � �� StatP of Californi� — ThP Natura! Resources Ac�ency EDIUIUND G. BROWN JR�, C�lv�rnor ����','�'I DEPARTMENT OF FI�M AND WELDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Girectar ua�� � ,�I Bay Deita Region „.�» y� � � `��� ,�� 7329 Silverado Trail Napa, CA 94558 ''�`' (707} 944-5500 � °� .._��rilsUl�ela;�.4, z t��.2.� . CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determin�tion Date Submitted: March 8, 2016 Applicant Name: Mr. �nd fvlrs. Patrick (Brittney} Aitken Applicant Address: 11 East Carol Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Name: Residential Remode�/Addition CEQA Lead Agency: City of Burlingame, Pianning Divisiori CEQA Document Type: Initial Study SCH Number and/or local agency ID fVumber: n/a Project Location: 11 East Carol Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Brief ProJect Description: Existing single family hause (2-story} with (existinq) detached garage. Adding to existing second floor and remodeling a major portion of the existing. The exi�ting Garage is not included in ihe scope and is protected durir�g construction. Describe clearly why the project has no effect on fish and wildlife: The project has r�o effect as we are using basically the same small footprint of the existing building and will not be cutting any of the existing trees and most of the existing landscaping �vifl rernairi as existing. „t.. <° „ — , �:., � ^�{rshAN�� Determination: �ased on a review of the Project as proposed, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that for purpases of the assessment of CEQA filing fees [F&G Code 711.4(c)] the project has no potential effect on fish, wildlife and habita� 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 exera�pt fram CEQA and does n�t determine the sic�nificance of any potential project effects evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Please retain this original determination for your recarcis; 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 Yhe CEQA lead agency's Notice of Determination (NOD). 1f you do not file a copy of khis determination with the County Clerk at the time of filing of the NOD, the appropriate CEQA filirig fee will be due and payable. Without a valid No Effect Determination Form or proaf of fae 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 Appr�val By: Date: Juiv 20, 2016 Scott Wilson Regional Manager Bay Delta Region (;'orl.serrtz�r'rt� �'c��fnt��r.a��'s �%V7Lc�f fe ,S7'rrce 1 ��'iC) � ' �� ' State of California - Department of Fish and Wildlife �.� 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT DFW 753.5a (Rev. 12/15/15) Previously DFG 753.5a f iEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY. LEADAGENCY CITY OF BURLINGAME COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING San Mateo LEADAGENCY EMAIL DOCUMENT NUMBER PROJECT TITLE ND-589-P-11 EAST CAROL AVE- FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXITING PROJECTAPPLICANT NAME PROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL PHONE NUMBER W. MEEKER � � PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS ❑ Water Right Application or Petition Fee (State Water Resources Control Board only) $850.00 $ � County documentary handling fee , $ ❑ Other $ PAYMENT METHOD: ❑ Cash ❑ Credit � Check ❑ Other TOTAL RECEIVED $ PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box) �✓ Local Public Agency � School District � Other Special District � State Agency CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ❑ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $3,070.00 $ ❑ Mitigated/Negative Declaration (MND)(ND) $2,210.25 $ ❑ Certified Regulatory Program document (CRP) $1,043.75 $ ❑ Exempt from fee ❑ Notice of Exemption (attach) � CDFW No Effect Determination (attach) . ❑ Fee previously paid (attach previously issued cash receipt copy) 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 50.00 SIGNATU X ��--� AGENCY OF FILING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE ANSHU NAND/DEPUTY CLERK � ���d,��,; µ RECEIPT NUMBER: 41 — 7272016 — STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (!f applicab/e) DATE 07272016 � Private Entity ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY - CDFW/ASB COPY - LEAD AGENCY COPY - COUNTY CLERK DFW 753.Sa (Rev. 20151215) County of San Mateo Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Mark Church 555 County Center Redwood City, CA, 94063 Finalization 2016044929 7/27/16 4:16 pm 022 31 Item Title 1 EIRA EIR Administrative Fee Document ID Amount DOC# 2016-000228 50.00 Time Recorded 4:16 pm Total 50.00 Payment Type Amount Check tendered 50.00 # 7400 Amount Due 0.00 THANK YOU PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR RECORDS � FORM PLUS ONE 3841 24TH ST STE A SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114 7400 7 � j Y f 90/7162 DATE I ��y PAV TO THE �y��''/� % /y�y y��/"1l i,p'','�''�ry ORDER OF � �" •�^' [�' � �^ Y r� � ��i• `' I . � W �' /�I' � r '' �^ L � DOLLARS �+ „. ��..� ��., � ' �I�tld1�G 1 / JPMorgan Chase Bank, N,A. I wuvw.Chase.coi � !�� ,.i. � � ` ( � p, ` „ � ' MEMO , ��� �- � M' i �, . � --"--'—' �--� --- ' ---'— _. _......._.._'----.. .---...--------- I', �:32227i627�: 94436080 n■7400 CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 To �, c i v �c�* � �r �: , �• = — .+ 4�4 �� .. ..o��, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division PH: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 �OSTING NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION oNLY ����� ��� Interested Individuals From: City of Burlinaame 1AnD /l g 20�6 Countv Clerk of San Mateo Communitv Development Deqartment Plannin� Division 501 Primrose Road Burlin�ame, CA 94010 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (ND-589-P) Project Title: 11 East Carol Avenue, First and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling with a detached garage Project Location: 11 East Carol Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The proposal is to add first and second story additions to the existing two story single family dwelling on site at 11 East Carol Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing detached garage on site will not be altered. The house would have a total floor area of 3,372 SF (0.56 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing detached garage provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed six-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a second story addition to the existing house. 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 March 8. 2016. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on March 28, 2016. 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 first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling at 11 East Carol Avenue, and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project, has been tentatively scheduled for March 28. 2016 at 7:00 q.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: Julv 8. 2016 Initial Study 11 EAST CAROL AVENUE INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 11 East Carol Avenue CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. Project Title: 11 East Carol Avenue, first and second story additions to an existing single family residence 2. 3. 4 5. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: R-1 City of Burlingame, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 William Meeker, Community Development Director (650) 558-7250 11 East Carol Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 Patrick and Brittney Aitken 11 East Carol Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Low-Density Residential APN: 028-302-160 8. Description of the Project: The proposal is to add first and second story additions to the existing two story single family dwelling on site at 11 East Carol Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing detached garage on site will not be altered. The proposed new structures would cover 36% (2,138 SF) of the 6,000 SF lot, where 40% (2,400 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,372 SF (0.56 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing detached garage provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed six-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a second story addition to the existing house. 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. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the Glenwood Park Subdivision, in the southern portion of Burlingame, west of EI Camino Real. The original house on the parcel (built in 1921) remains on the property today, though it has been added to and remodeled. All of the properties in this subdivision, as well as neighboring subdivisions, were included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The properties immediately behind the subject property and adjacent to EI Camino Real are multifamily residential properties. The remaining properties surrounding the subject site to the west, east, and south, are single family residential properties. The Town of Hillsborough lies a half mile to the south and the City of San Mateo lies a half a block to the east of the subject property. Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies 0.2 miles northwest 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. This space intentionally left blank. Environmental Impacts Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below wouid be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ 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 proposed project, nothing further is required. , � , i! Signature William Meeker Printed Name March 8, 2016 Date Citv of Burlin�ame For Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 1. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 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 Less Thon Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Signifitont Mitigation Signifitant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � � 11 East Carol Avenue No Impact � � � � The subject site is a rectangular-shaped lot that measures SO feet by 120 feet. The existing house is a two story single family dwelling. There is a detached garage at the rear, right side of the lot. The proposed project consists of a first story addition at the rear of the house and enlarging the existing second story. The project is subject to residential Design Review to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed house would cover 36% (2,138 SF) of the 6,000 SF lot, where 40% (2,400 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 3,372 SF (0.56 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing height as measured from average top of curb is 23'-4". The height of the addition will be 30'-0", where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed. The house will be set back 21'-5" from the front property line where 19'-11" is the minimum required. Exterior materials on the proposed house include a stucco finish with board and batten siding detail, a shingle roof, and wood corbels and trim. No work is proposed to the existing detached garage. The garage accommodates two vehicles, one vehicle in the single-car bay with a garage door at the right side and one vehicle in the carport area on the left side. 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 existing tress and those proposed to be planted on site, views from surrounding properties will be minimally impacted. The neighborhood consists of a variety of styles, most of which are two-story dwellings. The subject property will be consistent with the development in this area. While the project has the potential to generate an incremental increase in light generated on the site compared to existing conditions, the project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that 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 Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16— Electrica/ Code, Burlingame, California, 2010 edition. Project plans date stamped February 8, 2016. 5 Initial Study Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Signifitant 11 East Carol Avenue Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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 project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or � � � � Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmiand Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Wiliiamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, couid result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Distussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � 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 Bur/ingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Project plans date stamped February 8, 2016. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. L•� Initial Study 11 East Carol Avenue Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Signifitant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impatt Intorporation Impoct No Impatt 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) 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The proposed application is for first and second story additions to an existing two story house with a detached 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 P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012. 7 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Less Than Significont or Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigation Impoct Incorporation 11 East Carol Avenue Less Than Significant Impact No Impoct 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, and 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 wildiife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conseroation Plan, Naturai Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � � � � � � The site currently has an existing single family residence and detached garage. There are several existing trees on site, including one Redwood tree at the rear, left corner of the lot that meets the definition of a protected-size tree. 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. The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements. The landscape plan indicates that three new landscape trees will be planted on the property, including 2, 24-inch box size Cherry Plum (or similar) trees in the front setback and 1, 36-inch box size Crape Myrtle in the rear yard. There are 2 existing landscape trees on site that will remain. One of these trees is a protected-size Redwood located at the rear, left corner of the lot. The proposed paving in the rear yard will be 17 feet from the base of this tree and the proposed construction will be 25 feet from the base of this tree. Standard tree protection measures are required to be in place and inspected by the City Arborist prior to any construction or demolition on the site. E� Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources 11 East Carol Avenue The City of Burlingame Genera/ Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 —Zoning, Burlingame, California Map of Areas of Specia/ Bio/ogical Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game. Project plans date stamped February 8, 2016. This space intentionally left b/ank. Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information Sourtes): 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion Less Than Significont or Significant Potential/y with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorparation Impact ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 East Carol Avenue No Impoct ❑ � � � The subject property is located within the Glenwood Park subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., and dated December 15, 2015. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria. Those four criterion include Events, Persons, Architecture and Information Potential. The following is an excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation that was conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc.: "The residence at 11 East Carol Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed locally. The house at 11 East Carol Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Constructed in 1921, the building does convey contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Glenwood Park and the surrounding suburbs. However it is not among the earliest homes in the neighborhood, nor does it appear especially influential in the overall development of the neighborhood. It is one of many residence of similar size and style constructed during the 1920s- 1930s building boom in this area and is not individually representative, nor significant, within this historic context. Therefore the property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. 10 Initial Study il East Carol Avenue 11 East Carol Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under Criterion 2(Persons) Research has not revealed any association with people significant in local, state or national history. The most prominent owners and occupants of the subject property were the Watson's. While William Watson Jr.'s position as San Mateo County's first building inspector is notable, there is insufficient information available to ascertain any individual impact to the county's development. Other shorter-term owners do not appear to be significant within a larger historical context. Research does not indicate that former owners have risen to a level of significance at the local, state, or national level such that the property would be individually eligible for listing under Criterion B/2. 11 East Carol Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The architect and builder are currently unknown, so it cannot be said to be the work of a master at this time. It is an example of the typical scale and modest design constructed in the neighborhood in the 1920s. It reflects a Tudor Revival/English Cottage style prevalent among revival styles in the neighborhood with the half-hipped treatment at the roof and half timbering. However, the building does not exhibit enough notable architectural details to constitute a particularly outstanding or distinctive example of Tudor Revival/English Cottage style, and it does not appear to be an influential or noteworthy example of residential construction in the neighborhood. For these reasons, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion C/3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 11 East Carol Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4(Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. The house at 11 East Carol Avenue has undergone few major alterations and prominent additions have been constrained to the rear fa�ade. The building has undergone several interior remodels and repairs to portions of the first floor and crawlspace due to termite damage. At an unknown date, the shed-roofed volume was added to the rear fa�ade. The building still conveys its original design and character and retains integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. The house has not been moved and retains integrity of location. It continues to be used as a single-family residence within a dominantly residential neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood of one to two- story residences has retained the design characteristics of the Glenwood Park subdivision and many houses appear to be relatively unaltered. Therefore, 11 East Carol Avenue retains integrity of setting and association. For these reasons, the building retains integrity. 11 East Carol Avenue was constructed in 1921 during an early wave of the building boom of residential subdivision in an around Glenwood Park. The building as undergone some minor alterations and additions, which are mostly confined to the rear fa�ade, interior, and foundations. No significant events are associated with the property, nor is it considered to be an outstanding example of Tudor Revival/English Cottage style architecture in the area. Longtime owners, the Watsons, and later occupants do not rise to sufficient levels of individual significance. Therefore, the California Historical Resource Status (CHRSC) of "6Z" has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was "found ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or local designation through survey evaluation. 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 Glenwood Park as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood's eligibility as a historic district." 11 Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources 11 East Carol Avenue The City of Burlingame Genera/ P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 11 East Carol Avenue, Historica/ Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated December 15, 2015 This space intentionally left blank. 12 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not availabie for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact � Less Than Signifitant with Mitigation Incorporation ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 East Carol Avenue Less Than Significont Impact ❑� No Impact ��I ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The site has a less than 25% slope and is located in a semi-urban setting which has been developed with single family residential dwellings for the last 100 years, with most of the lots in vicinity 6,000 SF in area. There will be less seismic exposure to people and equipment than at present, since the remodeled areas and additions 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. 13 Initial Study Sources 11 East Carol Avenue The City of Burlingame Genera/ P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps, http://gis.abag.ca.�ov/website/liquefactionsusceptibilitv/, accessed March, 2014. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1981. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated December 7, 2015 and January 28, 2016. Project Plans date stamped February 8, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 14 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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) Confiict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 East Carol Avenue No ImpacY � � 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 projecYs contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact on air quality would be considered significant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it 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 projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities. ■ For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e. Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If 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, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. For single family dwellings, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality 15 Initial Study 11 East Carol Avenue 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 building programs provide the fastest and most economical means to reduce emissions. The proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Burlingame's Green Building Ordinance. Verification of compliance with Section A5.203.1.1 Tier 1(15% above Title 24) of the Green Building Ordinance or LEED Silver 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 would it conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 16 Initial Study Sources il East Carol Avenue Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2011 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Levei Sizes). City of Burlingame, Climate Action Plan, Burlingame, California, June, 2009. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated December 7, 2015 and January 28, 2016. This space intentionally /eft blank. 17 Initial5tudy Issues (and Supporting Informotion SourcesJ: 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 East Carol Avenue No Impoct � � � � � � � � This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its residential nature, this project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. There are no known health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. NPDES Best Management Practices are required to ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 18 Initial Study Sources: 11 East Carol Avenue The City of Burlingame Genera/ P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Tit/e 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 February 8, 2016. This space intentionally left b/ank. 19 Initial5tudy Significont o� Potentia/ly Significant Issues (and Supporting In/ormation SourcesJ: lmpact 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste � discharge requirements? b) Substantiaily deplete groundwater supplies or � interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of � the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially 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) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as � mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map orotherflood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures � which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of � loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? � Discussion il East Carol Avenue Less Thon Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significont Incorporation Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � � � � � � � � The proposed project is first and second story additions totaling 640 square feet to an existing single family dwelling a detached garage on the lot. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway. The project site is located in Flood Zone X, which is outside the 100-year flood zone. The site is tied into existing water main and lines which have adequate capacity to serve the existing building. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street. There will be an insignificant increase to the amount of impervious surface area due to the increase in the footprint of the proposed structures and driveway width. This added impervious surface will cause a slight increase in storm water runoff, but is considered insignificant given the size of the lot and the remaining pervious areas. Since the site is less than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the state-mandated water conservation program; although water conservation measures as required by the City will be met. 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. 20 Initial Study il East Carol Avenue Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. The project proponent will be required to ensure that all contractors implement BMP's during construction. This project is subject to the state mandated Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance; compliance will be determined by approval of a complete Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist, and landscape and irrigation design plans at time of the building permit application. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 26, Chapter26.16—Physica/ 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 F/ood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, October 16, 2012. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memoranda dated December 10, 2015 and February 8, 2016. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memorandum dated December 7, 2015. Project plans date stamped February 8, 2016. 21 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 11 East Carol Avenue Less Than Signifitant or Significant Potentially with Cess Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impatt 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? u ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or � regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation � plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion ❑ ❑ � The subject property is currently occupied by a two- story single family dwelling and detached garage and the proposed project will add 640 SF of floor area to the site. The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF for lots in this area, based on City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712. This existing lot is 6,000 square feet in area and is not part of a proposed subdivision or lot adjustment. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot and one secondary dwelling unit meeting minimum requirements per lot in this area. The project is subject to single family residential Design Review. The general plan would allow a density of eight units to the acre and the application is for one replacement unit on 0.14 acres, a density of 7.26 units per acre. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The subject property is within the Glenwood Park subdivision, which abuts the Town of Hillsborough to the south and the City of San Mateo to the East, and which was included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The surrounding properties to the west, east and south are developed with single family residences, and the properties to the north are developed with multifamily residences, all of which are within the City of Burlingame city limits. The proposed single family dwelling is a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District. The project would not result in a fundamental conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on land use and planning. The proposed residence conforms to 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 February 8, 2016. 22 Initial Study il East Carol Avenue Less Than Significant or Significont Potentiolly with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporfing Information SourcesJ: Impact lntorporation Impoct 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 the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- � � � � important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion According to the San Mateo County General P/an, 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 P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. San Mateo County, General P/an, October 18, 2010. This space intentionally left b/ank. 23 Initial Study Issues (ond Supporting Information SourcesJ: 12. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion Less Than Significant or Significant Potential/y with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impatt Incorporotion Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 East Carol Avenue No Impact � � � � � � The surrounding area has been occupied by single family dwellings for many years. With the proposed additions to the existing 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. Construction of the proposed dwelling will not require pile driving or other significant vibration causing construction activity. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code, which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. In addition, the site is located outside the designated noise-impacted area from San Francisco International Airport. The project does not include any permanent operational activity that would result in excessive or perceptible vibration, and the operational impact of the project on increased vibration levels would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 24 Initial Study City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California. 11 East Carol Avenue City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated December 7, 2015 and January 28, 2016. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use P/an, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped February 8, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 25 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion Less Than Significant or Significant Potential/y wiih Less Than Signifitant Mitigation Significant Impott Incorporotion Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � � 11 East Carol Avenue No Impoct � � � This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density residential uses. The proposed additions to the existing single family dwelling conform to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and do 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. 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 February 8, 2016. The City of Burlingame Genera/ P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 2010. 26 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Significant or Potentially Significant Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Thon Significont with Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significont lmpoct ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 East Carol Avenue No Impact ►� /� �I ►� ►1 Discussion The subject property is located within the City of Burlingame jurisdiction. The proposed project includes an addition to a single family dwelling, which represents an insignificant increase in the total population of the City. Therefore, existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the proposed residential unit. Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which also serves the Town of Hillsborough. Three stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road. As part of the permitting process, the Central County Fire Department would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city fire safety regulations. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional demand for fire protection services, and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities, the project's potential impact on fire protection services would be less than significant. Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department, located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project consists of replacing single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling. Therefore, the project would not result in an increased demand for police services or require the expansion or construction of police facilities. The 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; it is anticipated that the potential number of school-age children would not increase or only increase slightly. Therefore, any students generated by the project would be accommodated by the existing capacity of the two districts, resulting in a less than significant impact. 27 Initial Study 11 East Carol 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 December 10, 2015. City of Burlingame Website, www.burlin�ame.or� This space intentional/y left blank. 28 Initial Study 11 East Carol Avenue Less Than Significpnt or Signifitant Potential/y with Less Than Significont Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 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 recreational 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 an addition to 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. This space intentionally /eft blank. 29 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information Sourtes): 16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Would the projed: 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- capaciry 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 result 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 or Significant Potential/y with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � � � 11 East Carol Avenue No Impact � � � � // ►1 // The site is on East Carol Avenue, a side street connecting to other collector streets that provide access to EI Camino Real, a regional arterial. This project will not create an increase in the traffic generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any temporary incremental increase to traffic or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities. The existing dwelling has four potential bedrooms and this number will be increased to six potential bedrooms with the proposed additions to the dwelling. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing detached garage provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed six-bedroom house. 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 P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. 30 Initial Study il East Carol Avenue San Mateo County Comp�ehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012 Project plans date stamped February 8, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 31 Initial5tudy 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion Significant or Less Than Potentially Significont with Significant Mitigation Impact Intorporotion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 East Carol Avenue Cess Than Significant Impoct No Impatt ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � 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 East Carol Avenue. The proposed residence will be connected to an existing 8-inch polyvinyl chloride sewer main along East Carol 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 East Carol Avenue to Carol Avenue and then to catch basins at the intersection of Carol Avenue, Cypress Avenue, and 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 new house. Therefore, the project's impact to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant. The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems. All new utility connections to serve the site and that are affected by the development will be installed to meet current code standards; sewer laterals from the main on the site to serve the new structure will be checked and replaced if necessary. The current solid waste service provider is Reco►ogy, 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 32 Initial Study 11 East Carol Avenue 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. 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 P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memoranda dated December 10, 2015 and February 8, 2016. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memorandum dated December 7, 2015. Recology San Mateo County, www.recologysanmateocountv.com , site accessed April, 2014. Project Plans date stamped February 8, 2016. This space intentionally left blank. 33 c Initial Study 11 East Carol Avenue Significant or Less Than Potential/y Significant with Less Thon Signifitant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Info�mation SourcesJ: Impoct Incorporation Impact No Impoct 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 wildiife 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 The project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildiife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any potential short-term increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less than significant level, as described throughout the Initial Study. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project will not have significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 34