Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 East Carol Avenue - CEQA Documentimill State of California —The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OFFISH AND GAME RECEIPT# 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT 431305 STATE CLEARING HOUSE # (Happlicable) SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY r IIVJL -''-"'k)1) iC1 Cnroi r)Afe1hy)04 'At" 9 Local Public Agency ❑ School District ❑ Other Special District ❑ State Agency ❑ Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: nvronmental Impact Report (EIR) $2,919.00 $ eLli itigated/Negative Declaration (ND)(MND) $2,101.50 $ —� ❑ Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) $850.00 $ rojects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs (CRP) $992.50 $ County Administrative Fee $50.00 $ o ob a ❑ Project hat is exempt from fees ❑ Xtice of Exemption DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) ❑ Other $ PAYMENT METHOD: so v ❑ Cash ❑ Credit 51 Check ❑ Other TOTALRECEIVED $ SIGNATURE TfnF BESZ DE LA VEGA C& A."I WHITE -PROJECT APPLICANT YELLOW-DFG/ASB PINK-LEADAGENCY GOLDENROD -COUNTY CLERK DFG 753.5a (Rev. 11/11) .e NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ❑ Office of Planning and Research FROM: P.O Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 SAN MATEO COUNT' SUBJECT: CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Dept. Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 County Clerk County of San Mateo DARK CHURCH, County• e 401 County Center, Sixth Floor By Redwood City, California 94063 l (� i Filing of Notice of Determination in complianc ith S coon 21152 of �thePublic Resources Code. ND-565-P — 19 East Carol Avenue — New Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage to replace existing single family dwelling and detached garage on the site Project Title William Meeker (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 19 East Carol Avenue City of Burlingame San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The proposal is to demolish an existing single -story house and detached garage to build a new, single - story single family dwelling and a detached one -car garage at 19 East Carol Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed structures would cover 40% (2,397 SF) of the 6,000 SF lot, where 40% (2,400 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The proposed house and detached garage would have a total floor area of 2,305 SF (0.38 FAR) where 3,240.4 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There would be one covered parking space in the detached garage and one uncovered parking space provided on -site for the proposed four bedroom house. The applicant has applied for Design Review, for a new, single -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is subject to CEQA because on September 25, 2009, the City of Burlingame Planning Division received documentation from a Burlingame citizen that indicated that the entire subdivision within which this property is located (Burlingame Heights) may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. An historic survey has been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that although the building retains historic integrity, it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above -described project on August 27, 2012 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project [❑will ® will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: City of Burlingame Community Development Department, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame CA 94010. 3. Mitigation measures [❑were ® were not] made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [❑was ®was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings (® were ❑ were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 'This is to certify that the final EIR or Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Burlingame, Community Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. ///61 ,-7v lr2,- m M ee k r, Community Development Director 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor t DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Bay Delta Region ; 7329 Silverado Trail Napa, California 94558 (707) 944-5500''' CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination Form Applicant Name: Tony Leung Date Submitted: September 20, 2012 Applicant Address: 1325 Cabrilla Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Name: 19 E Carol CEQA Lead Agency: City of Burlingame CEQA Document Type: Negative Declaration SCH Number and/or local agency ID Number: N/A Project Location: 19 East Carol Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Brief Project Description: Demolish existing single -story house and detached garage to build a new single -story family dwelling and detached one -car garage at 19 East Carol Avenue in the City of Burlingame. The home will be 2,305 square feet. Describe clearly why the project has no effect on fish and wildlife: The project will replace an existing residence and detached garage already occupying the property within a subdivision. The surrounding properties are all developed with single family residences. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway and, all surface water is required to drain to the street and the site ties into an existing four -inch water line along the street. The proposed project would not result in ground disturbance or indirect or direct destruction of any habitat that would support fish and/or wildlife species. Determination: Based on a review of the Project as proposed, the Department of Fish and Game has determined that for purposes of the assessment of CEQA filing fees [F&G Code 711.4(c)] the project has no potential effect on fish, wildlife and habitat and the project as described does not require payment of a CEQA filing fee. This determination does not in any way imply that the project is exempt from CEQA and does not determine the significance of any potential project effects evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Please retain this original determination for your records; you are required to file a copy of this determination with the County Clerk after your project is approved and at the time of filing of the CEQA lead agency's Notice of Determination (NOD). If you do not file a copy of this determination with the County Clerk at the time of filing of the NOD, the appropriate CEQA filing fee will be due and payable. Without a valid No Effect Determination Form or proof of fee payment, the project will not be operative, vested, or final, and any local permits issued for the project will be invalid, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(3). DFG Approval By: �� ��� Date: October 26, 2012 Scott Wilson Acting Regional Manager Bay Delta Region NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ❑ Office of Planning and Research P.O Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 ® County Clerk County of San Mateo 401 County Center, Sixth Floor Redwood City, California 94063 FROM: CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Dept. Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ND-565-P — 19 East Carol Avenue — New Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage to replace existing single family dwelling and detached garage on the site Project Title William Meeker (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 19 East Carol Avenue City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The proposal is to demolish an existing single -story house and detached garage to build a new, single - story single family dwelling and a detached one -car garage at 19 East Carol Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed structures would cover 40% (2,397 SF) of the 6,000 SF lot, where 40% (2,400 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The proposed house and detached garage would have a total floor area of 2,305 SF (0.38 FAR) where 3,240.4 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There would be one covered parking space in the detached garage and one uncovered parking space provided on -site for the proposed four bedroom house. The applicant has applied for Design Review, for a new, single -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is subject to CEQA because on September 25, 2009, the City of Burlingame Planning Division received documentation from a Burlingame citizen that indicated that the entire subdivision within which this property is located (Burlingame Heights) may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. An historic survey has been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that although the building retains historic integrity, it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above -described project on August 27, 2012 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project [❑will ® will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: City of Burlingame Community Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010. 3. Mitigation measures [[:]were ® were not] made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [❑was ®was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings (® were ❑ were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final EIR or Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Burlingame Communit ry Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. WilYam Meeker Community Development Director STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Bay Delta Region 7329 Sllverado Trall Napa. California 94558 (707) 944-5500i CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination Form Applicant Name: Tony Leung Date Submitted: September 20, 2012 Applicant Address: 1325 Cabrilla Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Name: 19 E Carol CEQA Lead Agency: City of Burlingame CEQA Document Type: Negative Declaration SCH Number and/or local agency ID Number: N/A Project Location: 19 East Carol Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Brief Project Description: Demolish existing single -story house and detached garage to build a new single -story family dwelling and detached one -car garage at 19 East Carol Avenue in the City of Burlingame. The home will be 2,305 square feet. Describe clearly why the project has no effect on fish and wildlife: The project will replace an existing residence and detached garage already occupying the property within a subdivision. The surrounding properties are all developed with single family residences. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway and, all surface water is required to drain to the street and the site ties into an existing four -inch water line along the street. The proposed project would not result in ground disturbance or indirect or direct destruction of any habitat that would support fish and/or wildlife species. Determination: Based on a review of the Project as proposed, the Department of Fish and Game has determined that for purposes of the assessment of CEQA filing fees [F&G Code 711.4(c)] the project has no potential effect on fish, wildlife and habitat and the project as described does not require payment of a CEQA filing fee. This determination does not in any way imply that the project is exempt from CEQA and does not determine the significance of any potential project effects evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Please retain this original determination for your records; you are required to file a copy of this determination with the County Clerk after your project is approved and at the time of filing of the CEQA lead agency's Notice of Determination (NOD). If you do not file a copy of this determination with the County Clerk at the time of filing of the NOD, the appropriate CEQA filing fee will be due and payable. Without a valid No Effect Determination Form or proof of fee payment, the project will not be operative, vested, or final, and any local permits issued for the project will be invalid, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(3). DFG Approval By: ��-� Date: October 26, 2012 Scott Wilson Acting Regional Manager Bay Delta Region STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor 0 DEPARTMENT Bay Delta Region 7329 Silverado Trail Napa, California 94558 (707)944-5500 OF FISH AND GAME CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination Form Applicant Name: Tony Leung Date Submitted: September 20, 2012 Applicant Address: 1325 Cabrilla Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Name: 19 E Carol CEQA Lead Agency: City of Burlingame CEQA Document Type: Negative Declaration SCH Number and/or local agency ID Number: N/A Project Location: 19 East Carol Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Brief Project Description: Demolish existing single -story house and detached garage to build a new single -story family dwelling and detached one -car garage at 19 East Carol Avenue in the City of Burlingame. The home will be 2,305 square feet. Describe clearly why the project has.no effect on fish and wildlife: The project will replace an existing residence and detached garage already occupying the property within a subdivision. The surrounding properties are all developed with single family residences. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway and, all surface water is required to drain to the street and the site ties into an existing four -inch water line along the street. The proposed project would not result in ground disturbance or indirect or direct destruction of any habitat that would support fish and/or wildlife species. Determination: Based on a review of the Project as proposed, the Department of Fish and Game has determined that for purposes of the assessment of CEQA filing fees [F&G Code 711.4(c)] the project has no potential effect on fish, wildlife and habitat and the project as described does not require payment of a CEQA filing fee. This determination does not in any way imply that the project is exempt from CEQA and does not determine the significance of any potential project effects evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Please retain this original determination for your records; you are required to file a copy of this determination with the County Clerk after your project is approved and at the time of filing of the CEQA lead agency's Notice of Determination (NOD). If you do not file a copy of this determination with the County Clerk at the time of filing of the NOD, the appropriate CEQA filing fee will be due and payable. Without a valid No Effect Determination Form or proof of fee payment, the project will not be operative, vested, or final, and any local permits issued for the project will be invalid, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(3). DFG Approval By: �� Date: October 26, 2012 Scott Wilson Acting Regional Manager Bay Delta Region NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ❑ Office of Planning and Research FROM: CITY OF BURLINGAME P.O Box 3044 Community Development Dept. Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Planning Division FILEDENDORSED 501 Primrose Road iN THE OFFICE VF THE COsn�CLERK RECORDERCALI01 Burlingame, CA 94010 ® County Clerk County of San Mateo NOV 0 6 2012 401 County Center, Sixth Floor Redwood City, California 94063 ByIV1ARib�U[ Cray clerk SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in complianWl)3i RL98aion 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ND-565-P — 19 East Carol Avenue — New Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage to replace existing single family dwelling and detached garage on the site Project Title William Meeker (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (if submitted to Clearinghouse) 19 East Carol Avenue, City of Burlingame San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The proposal is to demolish an existing single -story house and detached garage to build a new, single - story single family dwelling and a detached one -car garage at 19 East Carol Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed structures would cover 40% (2,397 SF) of the 6,000 SF lot, where 40% (2,400 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The proposed house and detached garage would have a total floor area of 2,305 SF (0.38 FAR) where 3,240.4 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There would be one covered parking space in the detached garage and one uncovered parking space provided on -site for the proposed four bedroom house. The applicant has applied for Design Review, for a new, single -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is subject to CEQA because on September 25, 2009, the City of Burlingame Planning Division received documentation from a Burlingame citizen that indicated that the entire subdivision within which this property is located (Burlingame Heights) may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. An historic survey has been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that although the building retains historic integrity, it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above -described project on August 27, 2012 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project [❑will ® will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: City of Burlingame Community Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010. 3. Mitigation measures [❑were ® were not] made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [❑was ®was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings (® were ❑ were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final EIR or Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Burlingame Community Development Department, Planning Division, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. /�_' Wil iam Meeker Community Development Director COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF BURLINGAME (BURLINGAIME Planning Division City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 PH: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Interested Individuals From: City of Burlingame County Clerk of San Mateo Community Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 R C t 0 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (ND-565-P) Project Title: 19 East Carol Avenue, New Single Family Dwelling and Detached GarPR_'to s( � 12 replace existing single family dwelling and detached garage on the site. Project Location: 19 East Carol Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 E 0UN-P 4_-k Project Description: The proposal is to demolish an existing single -story house and detached garage to build a new, single -story single family dwelling and a detached one -car garage at 19 East Carol Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed structures would cover 40% (2,397 SF) of the 6,000 SF lot, where 40% (2,400 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The proposed house and detached garage would have a total floor area of 2,305 SF (0.38 FAR) where 3,240.4 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There would be one covered parking space in the detached garage and one uncovered parking space provided on -site for the proposed four bedroom house. The applicant has applied for Design Review, for a new, single -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is subject to CEQA because on September 25, 2009, the City of Burlingame Planning Division received documentation from a Burlingame citizen that indicated that the entire subdivision within which this property is located (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 the building retains sufficient historic integrity to be considered a contributing resource to a potential historic district, but it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby given of the City's intent to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A negative declaration is prepared for a project when the initial study has identified no potentially significant effect on the environment, and there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of an Initial Study, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has prepared a Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010. As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on August 7, 2012. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on August 27, 2012. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination set forth in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing to: City of Burlingame Community Development Department — Planning Division. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period described above. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed Design Review for a new, single - story single family dwelling and detached garage at 19 East Carol Avenue, and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been tentatively scheduled for August 27, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: August 7, 2012 INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project Title: 19 East Carol Avenue, New Single Family Dwelling to replace existing single family dwelling on the site. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: William Meeker, Community Development Director (650) 558-7250 4. Project Location: 19 East Carol Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tony Leung 19 East Carol Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 6. General Plan Designation: Low -Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1 APN: 028-302-170 8. Description of the Project: The proposal is to demolish an existing single -story house and detached garage to build a new, single -story single family dwelling and a detached one -car garage at 19 East Carol Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed structures would cover 40% (2,397 SF) of the 6,000 SF lot, where 40% (2,400 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The proposed house and detached garage would have a total floor area of 2,305 SF (0.38 FAR) where 3,240.4 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There would be one covered parking space in the detached garage and one uncovered parking space provided on -site for the proposed four bedroom house. The applicant has applied for Design Review, for a new, single -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (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 the building retains sufficient historic integrity to be considered a contributing resource to a potential historic district, but it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is located in the Glenwood Park Subdivision, in the southern portion of Burlingame west of El Camino Real. The parcel is located on the east side of East Carol Avenue between Carol and Barroilhet Avenues. The original house on the parcel (built in 1916) and the garage remain on the property today. All of the properties in this subdivision, as well as neighboring subdivisions, were included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. This area is made up entirely of single family residential properties. The Town of Hillsborough lies six blocks to the west of the subject property; the City of San Mateo lies one-half block to the south of the subject property; and the Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies two blocks to the north of the subject property. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: There are no permits required from other public agencies. However, San Mateo County is a responsible agency. A building permit is required from the Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation Hydrology & Water Quality Noise Agricultural Resources Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE X DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a " potentially significant 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 (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. g 7 L William Meeker, ommunity evelopment Director Da Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 1,2 X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan 1,2 X or natural community conservation plan? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, 1,3 X either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 3 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 3 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial 5,6,7 X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated 5,6,7 X on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 5,6,7 X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including 5,6,7 X liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 6 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 5 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, 5,67 X or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 5,6 X 1-13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the 5 X use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? -3- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,15 X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 1 X interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 1,15 X site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 1,15, X site or area, including through the alteration of the 19 course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,15, X exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm 19 water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,4,15, X 19 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as 8 X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures 8 X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 1,8,14 X loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,6 X 5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 1,9 X applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 1,9 X existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of 1,9 X any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? -4- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,9 X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 1,9 X number of people? 6. TRANS PORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in 1,2,14 X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of 1,2,14 X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including 1,13 X either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design 14, 15 X feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 14,16, X 18 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,14 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1 X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 1,11 X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian 1,11 X habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 1,11 X protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 1,11 X native or resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? -5- Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,17 X protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 1,11 X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1 X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important 1 X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,12 X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,2,12 X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 1,12 X acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 12 X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 1, 12, X or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 13 two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 1 X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with 1,10 X an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 1,18 X loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? H. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels 1,2 X in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 1,2 X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise 1 X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2 X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 1,2 X or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 1 X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1,18 X b) Police protection? 1 X c) Schools? 1 X d) Parks? 1 X e) Other public facilities? 1 X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project. - a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1,15, X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 19 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 1,15, X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of 19 existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm 1,15, X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing 19 facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 1,15, X project from existing entitlements and resources, or 19 are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,15, X treatment provider which serves or may serve the 19 project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? -7- Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 1,15 X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 1,15 X regulations related to solid waste? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2,14 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, 1,14 X but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1,2, X quality of the site and its surroundings? 14,20 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare 1,14 X which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Create a substantial adverse change in the 1,14, X significance of a historical resource as defined in 20 ' 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,14, X significance of an archaeological resource pursuant 20 to "5064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1,14 X resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 1,14 X outside of formal cemeteries? 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing 1,4 X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or 1,4 X require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or 1 X Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1 X Williamson Act contract? &I Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Involve other changes in the existing environment 1 X which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 1,20 X quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 1 X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will 1 X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Summary 19 East Carol Avenue 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2011 edition. 3 City of Burlingame City Council, 2009-2014 Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California. 4 2010 Census 5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1981. 6 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. 7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. 8 Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, September 16, 1981 9 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, May, 2011 10 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 2011 11 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game 12 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998 13 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012 14 Project plans date stamped July 30, 2012 15 City of Burlingame, Engineering Memo dated June 14, 2012 16 City of Burlingame, Building Department Memo dated June 8, 2012 17 City of Burlingame, Parks Supervisor Memo dated July 10, 2012 18 City of Burlingame, Fire Department Memo dated June 4, 2012 19 City of Burlingame, NPDES Memo dated June 4, 2012 20 19 East Carol Avenue Historic Resource Analysis, prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., June 12, 2012 -10- Initial Study Summary 19 East Carol Avenue Land use and Planning Summary: No Impact. The subject property is currently occupied by a single -story house and detached garage. The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF for lots in this area, based on City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712, and this lot is 6,000 square feet in area. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The project is subject to single family residential Design Review. The general plan would allow a density of 8 units to the acres and the application is for one replacement unit on 0.14 acres, a density of 7 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 Burlingame Heights Subdivision to the west and the City of San Mateo to the south, and which was included in the original official incorporation of Burlingame in 1908. The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences, all of which are within the City of Burlingame city limits. The proposed residence conforms to all measurable requirements of the zoning code. The Planning Commission will review the project and determine compliance with Design Review criteria. Population and Housing Summary: No Impact. This site and the surrounding area are planned for low - density residential uses. The proposed redevelopment of an existing single family dwelling to replace an existing residence on the site conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element. The proposed project will not create any more housing because it is replacing an existing single family dwelling on the same parcel. Geologic Summary: No Impact. The site is flat and located in a semi -urban setting which has been developed with single family residential dwellings for the last 100 years, with most of the lots in vicinity over 6,000 SF in area. There will be less seismic exposure to people and equipment than at present, since the new single family residence will comply with current California Building Code seismic standards. The site is approximately two miles from the San Andreas Fault. The project will be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability. Water Summary: No Impact. This project will replace an existing residence on a currently occupied parcel. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway. The project site is located in Flood Zone B, which is outside the 100-year flood zone. The site ties into an existing 4-inch water line along Crescent Avenue and storm water collection distribution lines which have adequate capacity to serve the existing building. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street. There will be an insignificant increase to the amount of impervious surface area due to the increase in the 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. Air Quality Summary: No Impact. The proposed application is for a new single family dwelling to replace an existing residence on an existing developed site. While this project will accommodate a larger dwelling unit for habitation, the change in emissions is insignificant. The subject property is zoned for low -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. -11- Initial Study Summary 19 East Carol Avenue Transportation/Circulation Summary: No Impact. The site is on East Carol Avenue, a local street that provides access to Barroilhet Avenue, which connects to El Camino Real, a regional arterial. This project will not create an increase in traffic in the area. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any temporary incremental increase to traffic or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities. The proposed single-family dwelling meets the on -site parking requirement established in the zoning code. Biological Resources Summary: No Impact. The site currently contains an existing single family residence and detached garage. There are no existing protected size landscape trees on the property. In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with a single-family residence is required to provide a minimum of one, 24-inch box -size minimum, non -fruit tree, for every 1,000 SF of living space. The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements. The landscape plan indicates that that a total of four (4) 24" box size trees will be planted throughout where a minimum of two (2), 24-inch box size trees are required. Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: No Impact. All gas and electric services are in place for service to the homes in this area, with capacity to handle the redevelopment of an existing single-family residence proposed with the current application. It is likely that there will be no incremental increase to the use of energy because the new residence will comply with current Title 24 requirements, which requires energy efficient construction. Hazards Summary: No Impact. This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its residential nature, this project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. There are no known health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. NPDES Best Management Practices are required to ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways. Noise Summary: No Impact. The site has been occupied by a single family dwelling for many years. With the development of a new single family dwelling there will be no increase to the noise in the area. The noise in the area will be general residential noise such as vehicles coming to and from the house, sounds from the residents when using the backyard and noises from putting out garbage cans. The new structure will be compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code, which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. Public Services Summary: No Impact. The project is not expected to have a significant impact on the provisions of other public services, since this is an urbanized area with adequately sized existing public facilities in place. All existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the proposed use. Utilities and Service Systems Summary: No Impact. The subject property contains an existing single family dwelling and therefore has all necessary utilities on -site. To prevent wastewater from contaminating the water supply, a backflow prevention device is required to be installed as per Ordinance Number 1710, effective June 18, 2003. The current solid waste service provider is Recology San Mateo County, which sends solid waste collected in Burlingame to the Shoreway Environmental Center and Ox Mountain Landfill. Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractor will be required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream by transporting the construction waste separately. Solid waste generated during operation of the project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial. -12- M Initial Study Summary 19 East Carol Avenue The City of Burlingame has also adopted an ordinance requiring recycling of construction waste and demolition debris. The ordinance requires that 60 percent of the total waste tonnage generated from project construction shall be diverted from the waste stream. The applicant is required to complete a Recycling and Waste Reduction Form to be reviewed and approved by the Chief Building Official. It is required that records shall be kept and submitted to the City prior to the final inspection of the project. Aesthetics Summary: No Impact. The site currently contains a smaller single -story house, and the proposed larger, single -story house may have a minor visual impact on the existing streetscape. The project is subject to residential Design Review to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed house will cover 40% of the lot and will be 2,305 SF in area. The height, as measured from average top of curb, will be 19'- 8" and will be setback 20'-8" from the street. Exterior materials on the single family dwelling will consist of shingle siding with horizontal wood siding on the base, wood tapered columns with stone veneer base and composition shingle roofing. The detached one -car garage will also consist of shingle siding and asphalt shingle roofing. The windows will be aluminum clad framed with simulated true divided lites and wood trim. Exterior lighting provided on the lot will be required to conform to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be directed onto the site. With the proposed building placement and landscape plan, views from surrounding properties will be minimally impacted. The most apparent visual change will be from East Carol Avenue where the existing house will be replaced with a new single -story facade. The neighborhood consists of a variety of styles, with a mix of one and two-story dwellings. The subject property will be consistent with the development in this area. Cultural Resources Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The existing house on the property was built in 1916. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame Citizen on September 25, 2009, it was indicated that the entire subdivision within which this property is located (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 Resource Evaluation was completed by Page & Turnbull, Inc. in June, 2012, which concluded that based upon the State of California Resource Agency's four Criterion for a Historical Resource, the residence at 19 East Carol Avenue retains sufficient historic integrity to be considered a contributing resource to a potential historic district, but it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Those four criterion include: Events for local significance as a resource; Persons as a resource associated with the lives of persons important to local history; Architecture that "embodies the distinctive characteristics of a time and period"; and Information Potential. The following is an excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation that was conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc.: "The house at 19 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), indicating that no record of previous surveyor 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. Constructed in 1916, the house at 19 East Carol Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for any association with 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. The house does convey contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of the Glenwood Park subdivision, but it does not appear significant or influential in the development of the neighborhood. Rather, it appears to be one of many residences constructed during the late 1910s, and is not individually significant within this historic context. Therefore, the property does not appearto be individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. MKII W Initial Study Summary 19 East Carol Avenue The house at 19 East Carol Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion B/2 (Persons). The most notable long-term residents were Rowland and Eleanor Wilford, who lived at the property from 1937 until 1993. In 1930, the couple moved from San Francisco to Burlingame where they started the Wilford Travel Bureau, described in a 1991 San Mateo Times article as having been the only travel agency between San Francisco and Santa Barbara at that time. Between 1930 and the 1990, the Wilford Travel Bureau operated from a variety of locations in Burlingame, including 143 Park Road, 1311 Howard Street, 211 Park Road, and 1454 Burlingame Avenue from 1958 onward. Rowland Wilford served as a past president and national director for the Northern California American Society of Travel Agents, while Eleanor was active with the Daughters of the American Revolution. Overall, the Wilfords appear to have been respected members of the Burlingame community, but they do not appear as persons significant to history. Both Rowland and Eleanor died in the mid-1990s. The house at 19 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 building is a modest example of a Craftsman bungalow, but it is not a distinctively strong or prominent example of the style. Rather, the building employs relatively typical design conventions and does not appear to be an influential or noteworthy example of residential construction in the neighborhood. Therefore, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for listing in 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, and is beyond the scope of this report. The house at 19 East Carol Avenue retains integrity of location and setting. It is situated on its original lot, and the surrounding Glenwood Park neighborhood remains a residential area largely characterized by single-family houses. The property has experienced relatively few exterior modifications since its construction, the most notable being the enclosure of a portion of the porch in 1954. This alteration did alter the spatial relationships and massing at the front of the property, but was done with some deference to the existing materiality of the dwelling. Thus, while integrity of design is mildly compromised, the house retains overall integrity of materials, workmanship, and feeling. The building has also remained in use as a single-family dwelling throughout its history and retains integrity of association. Overall, the house at 19 East Carol Avenue is able to convey its essential historic character as an early twentieth-century Craftsman Style dwelling and therefore retains historic integrity. 19 East Carol Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria. The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of "6Z" has been assigned to 19 East Carol Avenue, meaning that it was "found ineligible for National Register, California Register or Local designation through survey evaluation." This designation is based on the property's lack of individual significance under the National Register and California Register eligibility criteria. 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, although many appear altered to varying degrees. Additional research and evaluation of Glenwood Park as a whole should be done to verify or refute the neighborhood's eligibility as a historic district. Recreation Summary: No Impact. The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The site involved in this project is not presently zoned or used for recreational uses. -14-