The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About149 Pepper Avenue - Environmental DocumentNOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ❑ O�ce of Planning and Research FROM: CITY OF BURLINGAME P.O Box 3044 Community Development Dept. Sacramento, California 95812��p-� ENDORSED Planning Division �,J IN Tf� OFFlCE OF TYE couHrra�aEcoao� 501 Primrose Road sAN�,4reo�cnuF. gurlingame, CA 94010 � County Clerk AUG 2 7 2015 County of San Mateo 555 County Center #1 MAR�� U��otu�t�c�gtiC Redwood City, California 94�3__` S� �t�a Depury cte�c SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ND-584-P — 149 Peqper Avenue — First and Second Story Additions to an existing sinqle-family residence Project Titie William Meeker (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submilted to Clearinghouse) 149 Pepper Avenue, City of Burlinqame San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The proposal is to add first and second story additions to the existing one and one-half story single family dwelling on site at 149 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing detached garage on site will not be altered. The house would have a total floor area of 4,396 SF (0.43 FAR) where 4,714 SF (0.46 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing detached garage (9'-0" x 18'-0" clear interior dimensions) provides one covered parking space for the proposed four-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a second story addition to the existing house and a Conditional Use Permit for existing glazed openings within 10 feet of a property line in the 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 Park No. 3) 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 C� of Burlingame, the Lead Agencx, has approved the above-described project on July 27, 2015 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project [Owill � will not] have a significant efFect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. � A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: Citv of Burlinqame Communitv Development Department, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010. 3. Mitigation measures [Owere � were not] made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [�was �was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings (� were ❑ were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the fina{ EIR or Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: Citv of Burlinqame Communitv Development Department, Planning Division, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. i, i %,�!,,. �� /�_'� /� i. William Meeker, Community Development Director Date State of California—The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Other Listings Review Code Primary # HRI # Trinomial NRHP Status Code Reviewer Date rage � vr �� rcesource name�s) or numper (assigned by recorder) _149 Pepper Avenue P1. Other ldentifier: "P2. Location: ❑Not for Publication DUnrestricted "a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Mateo. CA Date 2012 'c. Address 149 Pepper Avenue City Burlinqame Zip 94010 `e. Other Locational Data: Assessor's Parcel Number 028-263-060 "P3a. DesCription: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 149 Pepper Avenue is a one-story over raised basement single-family residence, constructed in 1924. Designed in the English Cottage style with apparent Classical Revival elements, recent renovations have somewhat obscured the original style. The 2470 sq. ft., wood frame building occupies a 10,400 sq. ft. rectangular lot on the southwest side of Pepper Avenue between Ralston Avenue and Barroilhet Avenue. The building is set back approximately 100 feet from the street and slightly north of lot center. The lot slopes down to the street and the house sits at its highest elevation (Figure 1). An asphalt driveway is located at the south perimeter of the lot. Midway down the driveway is a wood frame carport the width of the driveway, which appears as a porte cochere with a stuccoed arched opening and shed roof parapet covered with asphalt shingles. Behind the fa�ade is a simple wood structure covered with corrugated plastic. The carport extends 20 feet along the length of the driveway (Figure 6). A historic garage sits behind the residence, at the southeast corner of the lot, and has been converted to a detached room. The residence is clad in stucco and is capped by a combination roof with a main hip section and cross gables at the front and back. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles, and the side-facing gables at the front of the house are clipped. The primary fa�ade faces northwest towards Pepper Avenue. It contains a full-width, open porch. The entry level is accessed via a ten-step concrete stairway paved in smooth stone. The stairway is located at the center of the primary fa�ade. The bottom steps are wide and framed by two concrete square pillars clad in stucco and capped with red bricks. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (Iist attributes and codes) HP2: SinQle Familv Residence *P4. Resources Present: OBuilding ❑Structure ❑Object ❑Site ❑District ❑Element of District ❑Other �P5a. Photo ...,�Y � x � � � �� . �`$-` �� . e� � � ,+� � w;�- �i� �... :�, r` ,, � �` " �. -��::� � _ ;� `9�� _.� � � -.4� � � , .� g' �� - � �:; ' ,�,$,:�' -: �.. .. ., d r_ 9*. *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none") None "Attachments: ❑None ❑Location Map ❑Sketch Map OContinuation Sheet OBuilding, Structure, and Object Record ❑Archaeological Record ❑District Record ❑Linear Feature Record ❑Milling Station Record ❑Rock Art Record ❑Artifact Record ❑Photograph Record ❑ Other (list) P5b. Photo: (view and date) View of orimary (north) facade 08/13/2013 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Ohistoric 1923, Propertv Assessment *P7. Owner and Address: Jill and Derek Johnson 149 PepperAvenue Burlinqame, CA 94010 *P8. Recorded by: Paqe & Turnbull, Inc. 1000 Sansome Street Suite 200 San Francisco. CA 94111 *P9. Date Recorded: 08/28/2013 �`P10. Survey Type: Intensive DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information State of California — The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Page 2 of 10 Resource "`Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *P3a. Description: (continued) Primary # HRI # Trinomial me or #(Assigned by recorder) 149 Pepper Avenue "Date August 28, 2013 O Continuation ❑ Update The stairway narrows as it ascends to the porch. A contemporary iron railing runs up both sides of the stairway, leading to another pair of stucco pillars capped in red brick. The iron railing and six more pillars continue along the edge of the porch until they meet the corners of the fa�ade, enclosing the porch space. The stone paving is maintained on the floor of the porch and on a short path that connects the driveway to the stairs. The ground floor level features a prominent brick chimney with a wide base to the left of center, framed by arched French doors on either side. The French door to the right of the chimney acts as the primary entrance. There is an expanse of stucco to the right of the entrance where the historic primary entrance once stood. It was removed in the 2000 renovation detailed in the Construction History Section of this report. There is no additional fenestration on the primary fa�ade. The northeast end of the lot, nearest Pepper Avenue, contains a grass lawn. Terraced landscaping, featuring Mediterranean plants and classical design, connect the lawn to the porch. The front yard is lined by hedgerows on three sides, with a break at the street entrance to the driveway. Two mature magnolia trees create an additional barrier between the street and the lot. The southeast fa�ade faces the driveway (Figure 3). The foundation of the fa�ade is sloped, as the driveway continues to rise until it is level with the ground floor level of the house. A trimmed hedgerow runs along the house, beginning where the carport ends and ending at a tall wooden fence that marks the end of the driveway and the beginning of the rear yard (Figure 5). The middle section of the hedgerow blocks three small basement-level, three-lite, fixed, wood-sash windows. The southeast fa�ade contains two entrances. The first is on the southeast wall under the porch, leading to an interior space at raised basement level. This entrance was added during the 1995 exterior remodel detailed in the construction history section of this report. The second entrance is just beyond the carport arch. A wood batten door leads to the basement level. An arched wood-frame window with glazing similar to the French doors on the primary fa�ade sits at the ground floor level above the basement entrance. A rectangular louvered vent is above the window, under a hipped roof. A cross-gable dormer is found two thirds of the way toward the back of the house, where the original ell wing of the house begins. Paired rectangular 3-over-1, single-hung, wood-frame windows with ogee lugs sit beneath the second dormer. Five more rectangular 3-over-1, single-hung, wood-frame windows with ogee lugs fill in the fa�ade between the two dormers; two are paired. The back ell contains two small rectangular single-hung, wood-frame windows. An expanse of stucco wall lies in between the two small windows where another entrance was once located. It was removed in the 2000 e�erior renovation detailed in the construction history section of this report. The fenestration and roofline of the northwest fa�ade are similar to that of the southeast fa�ade, though it lacks the arched window and the entrances (Figure 4). There are no basement windows, but five small rectangular louvered vents sit at regular intervals at the basement level. An additional rectangular louvered vent sits in the back cross-gable dormer. The fa�ade has been lengthened by a rear addition. It is flush with the northern lot line and is minimally landscaped. The rear (southwest) fa�ade has been extended and extensively remodeled into a contemporary design (Figure 7). The left side of the rear fa�ade has been extended into the rear yard in two lengths (Figure 8). There are three glazed redwood framed entrances on the rear fa�ade: one has been added to the rear of the historic ell, one rectangular French door was added to the southwest fa�ade of the middle extension, and the last door is on the southeast fa�ade of the longest extended section. All doors lead onto a concrete patio with rectangular pavers. The patio continues to the entrance of the detached garage. The roof of the extension is flat, with extended eaves on the middle section. Redwood and steel visors extend over the door and windows of the longest extension. Floor to ceiling fixed steel frame windows frame the French doors, facing the back yard, and sit to the south of the southeast facing door, extending around the corner. The back yard and the garage have also been extensively remodeled in recent years (Figures 9& 10). The rear lawn is composed of artificial turf. A white-washed concrete planter extends from the northwest corner of the rear addition along the lot line until it meets the garage at the rear border. An outdoor kitchen has been added at the back of the yard that incorporates the same white- washed concrete material. Artificial turf has been used to fill in the southern end of the driveway that once extended to the garage (separated from the existing asphalt driveway by the wooden fence). The front gabled garage has been converted from its historic use into a detached room. The garage door on the northeast facade has been replaced with a large eight-lite fixed metal window, with a four-lite window above it in the gable end. The northwest fa�ade has been recessed and filled in with an exterior colonnade. A single-panel glazed wood sliding door, framed by floor to ceiling fixed windows, has been added to the northwest fa�ade of the garage facing the rear yard. The garage is capped with a standing seam metal roof containing a skylight. Both the house and the garage appear to be in excellent condition. DPR 523L State of California — The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Page 3 of 10 Res "Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. �� $��, ��. _. �� Primary # HRI # Trinomial rce Name or #(Assigned by recorder) 149 Pepper Avenue *Date August 28, 2013 0 Continuation ❑ Update � , �, -.,� � , i�'s� ��'��. , i� Figure 2. View of the primary (northeast) fa�ade with hedgerow separating the yard from neighboring lot. � �� Figure 1. View from the street of primary (northeast) fa�ade with sloping lawn, and mature magnolia trees at the front of the lot. `� .�' -,� � � �� _..� � .�" � �9Y r , � � � �. -:� ' � £ �� . �' � .. �ye� �� a � , . a.' � ,�'.,� e3, .. � i � .- , �n Ty.l., j I� ��` x 1 4� �, ' `�� `--. :. il.: ll��ii �' � �sr�, _,��? K 1 ..�°�y -,—��'.s�..- `. Figure 4. View of northwest fa�ade and neighboring driveway/lot. , � ^,� . �_ �� ` � � � Q .. � � , ,� - ss��+�''�- � , � � �$ �� - � ( Figure 6. A carport extends from the primary fa�ade of the house over the driveway. View also includes the entry under the porch to the basement level. Figure 5. Driveway looking toward the rear of the house. View includes hedgerow along the southeast fa�ade of the house and the southeast lot line. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Page 4 of 10 Res "Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. nu��- # . � �� Primary # HRI # Trinomial ource Name or #(Assigned by recorder) 149 Pepper Avenue *Date August 28, 2013 ❑O Continuation ❑ Update I�/� , R' � ;�� r ,�,�,.. �- � �...�- a�. � � �� . Figure 10. Northwest view of garage, with new entrance, windows, skylight, and colonnade. in contemporary style. DPR 523L Figure 7. The rear (southwest) fa�ade and renovated rear Figure 9. Northeast fa�ade of the garage, showing the fixed windows that replaced the garage door. State of California —The Resources Agency Primary #. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 5 of 10 *NRHP Status Code 6Z *Resource Name or # 149 Pepper Avenue B1. Historic name: 149 Pepper Avenue B2. Common name: 149 Pepper Avenue 63. Original Use: Sinqle-Familv Residence B4. Present use: Sinqle-Familv Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Eclectic "B6. ConstruCtion History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) No original building plans or construction permits for 149 Pepper Avenue have been found, and the architect is unknown. The San Mateo County Assessor reports a construction date of 1924; water tap hook-up records are dated to 1923. The building has been extensively renovated, though most of the changes appear to have been made by recent owners. 1924: Building constructed; 1995: Front and rear porches remodeled, one interior bathroom remodeled, demolition and rebuilding of chimney; 1998: Completed remodel of interior spaces, all ceilings raised, eliminated one bathroom; 2000: First floor addition to back of house- included new bathroom, laundry room, study, and an expanded of the family room space; Unknown: Renovation of garage into un-attached additional room. "B7. Moved? �No ❑Yes ❑Unknown Date: Original Location: *68. Related Features: Garage, construction date unknown. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Theme Residentiai Architecture Area Burlinqame Park Period of Significance N/A Property Type Residential Applicable Criteria N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Historic Context: Citv of Burlinqame The lands that would become the City of Burli�game were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given by Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame's death in 1870, however, the land reverted to Ralston, and eventually to Ralston's business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. (see Continuation sheet) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *612. References: (See Page 8) 613. Remarks: Source: San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2013. Modified by Page & Turnbull (northwest is up) _ � -1; � - _ - � —a_�� _ { _ _ } ,,,, � � � - =z _ _ � �, ��_-_.T�. �, _ �; ;e_ _'��-�a'- :� � r ��- � = � �- �: `�� = . ,_ ; - - r - S � -- r,3? _ =�• �„� ,� =�_ - -m�-_i � ; � _ 's - "B14. Evaluator: Eleanor Cox, Paqe & Turnbull. Inc. *Date of Evaluation: Auqust 28. 2013 (This space reserved for official comments.) DPR 523B (1/95) :,� �� i - -- ' = �- , ;��= _ _ � _ r F �_ , � _ , ��„� � ; �' - � -- �.�� a ! -- - � = �'-'�,` _ _ �wi - _ j + �- � `i x� � � i =- �,ti _ t� .y - �a-- �_ -�`�. "_ �. . -`Dl . . y.: _� �_ � . �T•.� _ � �� . _ I- �� _ _. - ~� -�tw.__ �c:i,� _ -a "..R, L� i�� -� '� - =, � ` - z . , ,T - - -_ � - � �_- � «� -� - � � x = = .�« =j IT _ f � ' ° ,--� �� F -` -'_�� }'� - �8 - - ��'�. - i,,'.Ki = *�` '� -�-� � v� -� ; � �' � � ��'' _ � _" �sc -� ,�- I s -_- _ �$' 1 ^�- � 1. - - �� --__ .i� - °s - G� - - � � - - � � �- _ _ \�&c _ � '. a„ i - *Required information State of California —The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Page 6 of 10 "Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. 610. Significance (cont'd): Primary # HRI # Trinomial Resource Name or #: 149 Pepper Avenue "Date August 28, 2013 O Continuation ❑ Update In 1893, William Sharon's trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small- scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, EI Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. The 1906 Earthquake had a dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village's population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910 annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame's population had increased to 4,107. Burlinqame Park Neiahborhood The house at 149 Pepper Avenue was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (inciuding Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. The Rancho was inherited by Joseph Henry Poett and later sold to Anson Burlingame in 1866 and to William C. Ralston in 1872. Ralston began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Hall's early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands. Newlands commissioned Hall's cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The pian "centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree-lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents" (Brechin 1999, 94). The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911. Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded by EI Camino Real to the northeast; Howard, Crescent, and Barroiihet avenues to the southeast; Pepper Avenue to the southwest; and Bellevue Avenue to the northwest. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Bur�ingame Park developed over a period of about fifty years. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s and the majority of the residences in the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. By 1949, nearly all of the approximately 250 lots in Burlingame Park were developed. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth century building boom, to the present day. 149 Pepper Avenue The house at 149 Pepper Avenue was constructed in 1924, nineteen years after the Burlingame Park neighborhood was first platted, during a time of rapid development within the subdivision. No original building permit is available and, consequently, the architect and builder are not known. The first known occupants of the house were Robert Lee and Lucille McWilliams. They were first listed at 149 Pepper Avenue in the 1924 Burlingame City Directory. The previous Directory from 1922 states that McWilliams was an attorney in San Francisco and living at 117 Central Avenue in Burlingame. McWilliams was born on March 27, 1881 in Neola, lowa. His first marriage was to Madge Nagle, February 20, 1920. The McWilliamses had a daughter, Helen. His second marriage was to Lucy Sullivan. The February 24, 1922, issue of the Burlingame Advance reported that prominent attorney R.L. McWilliams of San Francisco and Burlingame wedded a woman from Detroit and they would reside in his home on Central Avenue. The article also noted that Mr. McWilliams was a member of the Bohemian Club and other organizations. The McWilliamses lived at 149 Pepper Avenue from 1924 until they sold the house on November 14, 1928 to Nathan and Alice Bowers. The Bowerses had previously lived at 809 Fairfield Road in Burlingame. Nathan Bowers was a civil servant, and the Pacific Coast editor of Engineering News. They remained at the house until Oct. 1, 1938. Arthur W. Plummer is listed as owner of 149 Pepper Avenue in the 1939 through 1957 Burlingame City Directories. His wife, Anna Marie, became part owner in 1946. They had one daughter together, Virginia. Arthur Plummer worked as a manager at Pauson Clothiers at 200 Kearny Street in San Francisco. Mr. Plummer passed away on January 25`h, 1956, at which point full ownership of 149 Pepper Avenue passed to his widow. Mrs. Plummer is listed as owner in the Burlingame City Directories from 1958 until 1980. It appears that 149 Pepper Avenue was managed by a rental agency for a period during the 1980s and 1990s. An advertisement in DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Page 7 of 10 *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. Primary # HRI # Trinomial Resource Name or #: 149 Pepper Avenue *Date August 28, 2013 � Continuation ❑ Update a local newspaper was published on November 21, 1987 for a"charming vintage home" available for $2,200 per month. Details about the rental property mentioned that the house maintained its original layout, including a room and bath for a live-in housekeeper behind the kitchen, and had been recently painted. By 1995, 149 Pepper Avenue was acquired by Dr. Leslie S. Kardos. She lived there for a short period and oversaw extensive exterior renovations to the porches before selling the home to Katrina and Andrew Pascal between 1997 and 1998. Mr. Pascal was an inventor. The Pascals updated the interiors of the house and lived there until August 2004, when they sold the property to Glenn H. Peterson and Cheryl L. Price. In 2012, Derek and Jill Johnson purchased 149 Pepper Avenue from the Petersons. Mr. Johnson was an attorney. The Johnsons had previously lived at 612 Lexington Way, Burlingame and in Palo Alto. They maintain ownership of the property in 2013. Evaluation (Siqnificance): The residence at 149 Pepper 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 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. Constructed in 1924, the house at 149 Pepper 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. The house does convey contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Burlingame Park, but it does not stand out as a first, only, or unique example of such development. Therefore, the property does rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for register inclusion under Criterion A/1. The house at 149 Pepper Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under Criterion 2(Persons) for its association with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. The house has changed ownership several times since it was constructed. None of the owners appear to have made important contributions to national, state, or local history that meet the significance threshold for historic register inclusion. The house at 149 Pepper 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, or represents the work of a master. The building is commensurate with the size of residences constructed along Pepper Avenue in the Burlingame Park neighborhood. However, the English Cottage style house has been remodeled since it was constructed, and it no longer fits into any distinctive style; therefore it is not a prominent example of a style that stands out among other neighborhood examples. The architect and builder are unknown and therefore cannot be considered masters. Consequently, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for register inclusion 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 149 Pepper Avenue for eligibility Criterion D/4 is beyond the scope of this report. Evaluation (Inteqritv): The house at 149 Pepper Avenue retains integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association. The building remains in its original location, and retains its use as a single family residence. The surrounding Burlingame Park neighborhood remains a residential area characterized by single-family houses. It represents an early period of residential development in Burlingame. Lot sizes and building scales have changed little since the neighborhood's original conception, helping to maintain the area's sense of setting and feeling. The property has undergone several major alterations in recent years. At the front of the house, the historic primary entrance has been removed. The entry stairs have been widened, moved and paved in contemporary stone, and the chimney has been rebuilt. The back of the house has been extended with a contemporary design, and the garage has been remodeled into a detached room. The landscaping in the back has also been altered, as the lawn has been replaced with artificial turf and an outdoor kitchen has been added. Therefore, integrity of design, materials, and workmanship have been compromised. 149 Pepper Avenue contributes to the historic significance of the neighborhood, but fails on an individual level to convey its historic significance as an early 20th century residence. Overall, the property does not retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance for the purposes of this evaluation. Conciusion DPR 523L State of California — The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Page 8 of 10 'Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. Primary # HRI # Trinomial Resource Name or #: 149 Pepper Avenue *Date August 28, 2013 O Continuation ❑ Update 149 Pepper Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California or National Register under any criteria. The property is a well-maintained residence constructed during an era of rapid development is the Burlfngame Park subdivision, but is not individually significant for this association. It has no association with notable persons, and is not the work of a master architect or builder. Finally, alterations have compromised the architectural integrity of the building. The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of "6Z" has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was "found ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or local designation through survey evaluation." This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth-century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood's eligibility as a historic district. 612. References: Public Burlingame City Directories Burlingame Historical Society profile: 149 Pepper Avenue. Burlingame Planning Department Building Permits. Carey & Company. "Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan," February 19, 2008. United States Federal Census records: 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950. San Mateo County Assessor Records Published Condon-Wirgler, Diane. "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park," Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004. Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New Yor Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921, 1949. Internet Soures Ancestry.com (site visit: 8/21/13) Burlingame Historical Society, 2007. k: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. DPR 523L State of California — The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Page 9 of 10 �Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. Historic Maps: Primary # HRI # Trinomial Resource Name or #: 149 Pepper Avenue "Date August 28, 2013 � Continuation ❑ Update DPR 523L 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 149 Pepper Avenue lot highlighted in red. (Image edited by author) 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 149 Pepper Avenue highlighted in red. (Edited by author) State of California — The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Page 10 of 10 �Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. Plans: ��_� ^�� „•��1"„• .� ??,�, i �a �ti , � � Primary # HRI # Trinomial Resource Name or #: 149 Pepper Avenue �`Date August 28, 2013 0 Continuation ❑ Update -------- --- - ;-h�.�,-_ - �. _ r..�". �p.'j��,��\\�/ /� �^Y e�_z,.iL�'.'J�: -imm--.°B. _— � ..-�_ }� `� / � � IV. s.ewwc. ' ..�.......c Ed� v � h / `t'l' � 1. � �� C /l � T• � -�,..,.: �� —"—a� ' V\ �` � � � � � � .. .. � ^ p�. � __ __a�_-l'� . � � � �..a�i�Zs �,."'rta a L"i` °"� . . ' -__.v_.�. ^� �'TC7^1` - h.% ' E'✓J' ^^♦ .s.�.r�..a .. � .-. .. J ;�"e�.;'-mA"�.`,"' -.n< .,a.�.. - _ The house after renovation in 1995, with new stairway. (Burlingame Department of Planning, Building permit #9502255). DPR 523L The house in 1995. (Burlingame Department of Planning, Building Permit #9502255) t�` p.? �.� � w..,��C3G .Z , 2 m � " • ` 'S �� 1� �� ' Ghief Eiect�ons Officer � Assessor-Covnty Gi�rk-R�corder Date: 10/30/2015 To: CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Final Posting Confirmation for Environmental Impact Reports 555 Ceunty Center Redwand Gty. CA 94063w1bb5 phane b5Q.363.4500 fax b50.S99.7458 �mail e(erk��smcare.org web www.smCare.c�rg Subject: Return of Environmental Documents Filed and Posted for 30 days. Public Resources Code Section 21092.3 The attached document(s), File Number 126174 was received, filed and a copy posted with the County Clerk on 08/27/2015 and remained posted for thirty calendar days. By. -�'O- �-�--�� -� Anshu Nand Deputy Clerk on behalf of Mark Church SS-]2 Posting Confirmation Letter for Environmental Impact Reports.doc ��"` State of Califomia—Natural Resources Agency k�' CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISHAND WILDLIFE 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY �1-201 TATE C # (Ifapplicable) LEADAGENCY DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME 08/27/2015 :OUNTY/STATEAGENCYOF FILING DOCUMENT NUMBER San Mateo � � �� 126174 PROJECT TITLE ND-584-P - 149 PEPPER AVE - FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXITING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PROJECTAPPLICANT NAME PHONE NUMBER WII I IAM MFFKFR l � PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS � Local Public Agency � Schooi Oistrict � Other Special District � State Agency � Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: � Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $3,069.75 $ o.00 � Mitigated/Negative Declaration (MND)(ND) $2,210.00 $ 2,2�0.00 � Appiication Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board only) $850.00 $ 0.00 � Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs (CRP) $1,043.75 $ 0.00 � County Administrative Fee $50.00 $ 50.00 � Project that is exempt from fees Q Notice of Exemption (attach} � CDFW No Effect Determination (attach) � Other $ PAYMENT METHOD: � Cash � Credit �Check �Other TOTAL RECEIVED $ 2,260.00 X IURE �RINTED NAME AND TITLE BESZ DE LA VEGA-DEPUTY CLERK ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY - CDFW/ASB COPY - LEAD AGENCY COPY - COUNTY CLERK DFG 753.5a (Rev. 11/14) NOTICE OF DETERMINATION T0: ❑ Office of Planning and Research � I L�� FROM: P.O Box 3044 MqTEG COUNIY Sacramento, California 95812-3� /1 SUBJECT: CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Dept. Planning Division AUG 2� 2015 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 County Clerk ' '� MARK �HU�i , �e�c,��' County of San Mateo By � 555 County Center # 1 ��ry ci� � Redwood City, California 94063 � Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ND-584-P — 149 Pepper Avenue — First and Second Stor�Additions to an existing single-family residence Project Title William Meeker (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 149 Pepper Avenue, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The proposal is to add first and second story additions to the existing one and one-half story single family dwelling on site at 149 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing detached garage on site will not be altered. The house would have a total floor area of 4,396 SF (0.43 FAR) where 4,714 SF (0.46 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing detached garage (9'-0" x 18'-0" clear interior dimensions) provides one covered parking space for the proposed four-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a second story addition to the existing house and a Conditional Use Permit for existing glazed openings within 10 feet of a property line in the detached garage, This project is subject to CEQA because on September 25, Z009, 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 Park No. 3) may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. An historic survey has been completed for the existing house on the property, and it has been determined that although the building retains historic integrity, it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Also, because the City of Burlingame does not maintain a local historic register, the building was not evaluated for potential eligibility as a local historic resource. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agencx, has approved the above-described project on July 27, 2015 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. � , , i �r��;-�%_� / ,�;,, _ William Meeker, Community Development Director Date . CITY OF BURLINGAME I � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �� +uiFtLINGAt�1E Planning Division City Hall — 501 Primrose Road PH: (650) 558-7250 .� , � .� y� � � Burlingame, California 94010-3997 I FAX: (650) 696-3790 �� " �� i —._ ,�;; � ;' �'iJ�� .;:�::Ft�>.-� � . :r�;��,�a?d�3��'r NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Interested Individuals From: Citv of Burlin�ame County Clerk of San Mateo Community Develoqment Department Plannin� Division 501 Primrose Road Burlin�ame, CA 94010 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (ND-584-P) Project Titie: 149 Pepper Avenue, First and second story additions to and existing sing►e family house with a detached garage Project Location: 149 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The proposal is to add first and second story additions to the existing one and one-half story single family dwelling on site at 149 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing detached garage on site will not be altered. The house would have a total floor area of 4,396 SF (0.43 FAR) where 4,714 SF (0.46 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing detached garage (9'-0" x 18'-0" ciear interior dimensions) provides one covered parking space for the proposed four-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a second story addition to the existing house and a Conditional Use Permit for existing glazed openings within 10 feet of a property line in the detached garage. 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 lulv Z, 2015. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on Julv 27, 2015. 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 and a Conditional Use Permit for an existing accessory structure at 149 Pepper Avenue, and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project, has been tentatively scheduled for July 27, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. in the Councii Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: Juiy 2. 2015 149 PEPPER AVENUE INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. Project Title: 149 Pepper Avenue, first and second story additions to an existing single family residence and with a detached garage 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. 4. 5. Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: R-1 William Meeker, Community Development Director (650) 558-7250 149 PepperAvenue Burlingame, California 94010 Jill and Derek Johnson 149 PepperAvenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Low-Density Residential APN: 028-263-060 8. Description of the Project: The proposal is to add first and second story additions to the existing one and one-half story single family dwelling on site at 149 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing detached garage on site will not be altered. The proposed new structures would cover 35% (3,565 SF) of the 10,230 SF lot, where 40% (4,092 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 4,396 SF (0.43 FAR) where 4,714 SF (0.46 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing detached garage (9'-0" x 18'-0" clear interior dimensions) provides one covered parking space for the proposed four-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a second story addition to the existing house and a Conditional Use Permit for existing glazed openings within 10 feet of a property line in the detached garage. 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 Burlingame Park No. 3 Subdivision, in the southern portion of Burlingame, west of EI Camino Real. The original house on the parcel (built in 1924) remains on the property today, though it has been added to and extensively remodeled. 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 one block to the west and the City of San Mateo lies one block to the south of the subject � property and the Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies 0.5 miles 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 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. 0 �€ �� Signature William Meeker Printed Name �uiv z, 2oss Date City of Burlin�ame For Issues (and Supporting lnformation 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 Than Significant or Significant Potential/y with Less Than Signifitant Mitigation Significant lmpact Intorporation lmpact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �� No Impact � � � � The subject site slopes upward from the curb to the rear property line by approximately 17 feet. The existing house is a one and one-half story single family dwelling. Due to the slope on the lot, there are two stories at the front of the house and a single story at the rear. There is a porte cochere at the left front side of the house that extends to the left side property line and a detached garage at the rear, left side of the lot. The proposed project consists of first and second story additions at the front of the house and expanding the existing half story on the lower level by excavating toward the rear of the house. The project is subject to residential Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit for the detached garage to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed house would cover 35% (3,565 SF) of the 10,230 SF lot, where 40% (4,092 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 4,396 SF (0.43 FAR) where 4,714 SF (0.46 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing height as measured from average top of curb is 31'-1". The height of the addition will be 22'-7" and an existing roof ridge will be extended at a height of 29'-3", where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed. The house will be set back 59'-8" from the front property line where 57'-5" is the minimum required. Exterior materials on the proposed house inciude a standing seam metal roof, cement trellis columns, and a metal trellis roof. Although no work is proposed to the existing detached garage with this application, the applicant is applying for a Conditional Use Permit to permit existing windows and skylights in the detached garage that were installed without the benefit of permits at some time in the last 10 years. 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 addition and the new trees 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. 5 Initial Study 149 PepperAvenue City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 — E/ectrical Code, Burlingame, California, 2010 edition. Project plans date stamped June 3, 2015. Site Visit, March 24, 2015. � Initial Study 149 PepperAvenue Cess Than Significant or Signifitant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significont Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation /mpati 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 Farmiand, 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-agriculturai 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 June 3, 2015. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. 7 Initial Study 149 PepperAvenue ' Less Than Significant or Significant Poientially with Cess Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Informotion SourcesJ: Impatt lnco�poration Impact No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ � applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ � substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) 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 one a half 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 Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012. 0 Initiai Study Issues (and Supportinq Information SourcesJ: 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies; regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected wetlands, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion Less Than Significant or Signifitant Potentially with Less Than Significont Mitigation Significant lmpact Intorporation /mpact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue No Impact � � � � � � The site currently has an existing single family residence and detached garage. There are several existing trees on site, but none of the existing trees meet 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 the seven new landscape trees will be planted throughout the site, including 2, 24-inch box size Palo Verde (or similar) trees at the front entry to the residence and 5 Gingko Biloba along the left side property line towards the front of the lot. There are 3 existing landscape trees on site that will remain. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources � Initial Study 149 Pepper Avenue 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 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game. Project plans date stamped June 3, 2015. This space intentionally /eft b/ank. 10 Initial Study lssues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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 indirectiy 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 Thon Significant or Significant Potentiolly with Less Than Signifitant Mitigation Significant lmpact lncorporation Impact ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue No Impact ❑ � � � The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 3 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 August 28, 2013. 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 149 Pepper 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 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 149 Pepper 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. The house does convey contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Burlingame Park, but it does not stand out as a first, only, or unique example of such development. Therefore, the property does rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for register inclusion under Criterion A/1. 11 Initial Study 149 PepperAvenue The house at 149 Pepper Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under Criterion 2(Persons) for its association with the lives of persons important to local, California, or nation history. The house has changed ownership several times since it was constructed. None of the owners or occupants appears to have made important contributions to national, state, or local history that meet the significance threshold for historic register inclusion under Criterion B/2. The house at 149 Pepper 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 or that represents the work of a master. The building is commensurate with the size of residences constructed along Pepper Avenue in the Burlingame Park neighborhood. However, the English Cottage style house has been remodeled since it was constructed, and it no longer fits into any distinctive style; therefore it is not a prominent example of a style that stands out among other neighborhood examples. The architect and builder are unknown and therefore cannot be considered masters. Consequently, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for register inclusion 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 149 Pepper Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4(Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. The house at 149 Pepper Avenue retains integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association. The building remains in its original location, and retains its use as a single family residence. The surrounding Burlingame Park neighborhood remains a residential area characterized by single-family residences. It represents an early period of residential development in Burlingame. Lot sizes and building scales have changed little since the neighborhood's original conception, helping to maintain the area's sense of setting and feeling. The property has undergone several major alterations in recent years. At the front of the house, the historic primary entrance has been removed. The entry stairs have been widened, moved and paved in contemporary stone, and the chimney has been rebuilt. The back of the house has been extended with a contemporary design, and the garage has been remodeled into a detached room. The landscaping in the back of the house has also been altered, as the lawn has been replaced with artificial turf and an outdoor kitchen has been added. Therefore, integrity of design, materials and workmanship have been compromised. 149 Pepper Avenue contributes to the historic significance of the neighborhood, but fails on an individual level to convey its historic significance as an early 20`h century residence. Overall the property does not retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance for the purposes of this evaluation. 149 Pepper Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California or National Register under any criteria. The property is a well-maintained residence constructed during a busy era of development is the Burlingame Park subdivision, but it is not individually significant for this association. It has no association with notable persons, and is not the work of a master architect or builder. The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of "6Z" has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was "found ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or local designation through survey evaluation. This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth-century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood's eligibility as a historic district." 12 Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources 149 PepperAvenue The City of Burlingame Genera/ Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 149 Pepper Avenue, Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 28, 2013 This space intentionally left blank. 13 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 orthe 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 Tabie 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion Significant or Potentio/ly Significant Impact ❑� Less Than Signifitant with Mitigation incorporotion �' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue Less Than Significant Impact No Impact � ►1 ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � 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 over 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. 14 Initial Study Sources 149 PepperAvenue The City of Burlingame General P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps, http://�is.aba�.ca.gov/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 October 24, 2014; lanuary 13, 2015. Project Plans date stamped June 3, 2015. This space intentionally /eft blank. 15 initiai Study lssues (and Supponing /nformation SourcesJ: 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion Less Than Significant Potentia/ly with Less Than Significont Mitiqation Signifitant Impact /ncorporation /mpact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No /mpact � � 149 PepperAvenue 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 iand 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 16 Initial Study 149 Pepper Avenue BAAqMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes) set a screening threshold of 56 dwelling units for any individual single family residential project. The proposed project would be comprised of one unit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD's 2010 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD Homepage, accessed May 2012). As such, lead agencies need to determine appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on substantial. evidence in the record. Lead agencies may rely on the BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures. However, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project's significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air District's 1999 Thresholds of Significance and to make determinations regarding the significance of an individual project's air quality impacts based on substantial evidence in the record for that project. For this analysis, the City of Burlingame has determined that the BAAQMD's significance thresholds in the updated May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for project operations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are the most appropriate thresholds for use to determine air quality impacts of the proposed Project. First, Burlingame has used the May 2011 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%o 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. 17 Initial Study Sources 149 PepperAvenue ' 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 October 24, 2014; January 13, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. � Initial Study Issues (and Supporting lnformation 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 disposai 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 pursuantto 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 physicaliy interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injuryor death involvingwildlandfires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion Less Than Significant or Significant Potentia/ly with Cess Than Significont Mitigation Significant Impact Intorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue No /mpact � � � � � � � � This project has been designed to comply with all applicabie 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. 19 Initial Study Sources: 149 PepperAvenue . The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, February 16, 2012. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped June 3, 2015. This space intentionally left b/ank. 20 Initial Study lssues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer vo�ume 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 Fiood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Piace within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Signifitant Mitigation Impaci Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The proposed project is first and second story additions totaling 479 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. 21 Initial Study 149 PepperAvenue 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 /mprovements, Burlingame, California. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, October 16, 2012. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated October 28, 2014. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated October 29, 2014; January 14, 2015. Project plans date stamped June 3, 2015. 22 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 149 Pepper Avenue Less Than Signifitant or Significant PoYentially with Less Than Significant Mitiqation Significant Impact Incorporation lmpact No Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or � regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation � plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion ❑ ❑ � The subject property is currently occupied by a one and one-half story single family dwelling and detached garage and the proposed project will add 479 SF of fioor area to the site. The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 SF for lots in this area, based on City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712. This existing lot is 10,230 square feet in area and is not part of a proposed subdivision or lot adjustment. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The project is subject to single family residential Design Review. The general plan would allow a density of eight units to the acre and the application is for one replacement unit on 0.23 acres, a density of 4.25 units per acre. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The subject property is within the Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 3, which abuts the Town of Hillsborough 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 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 and Conditional Use Permit 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 June 3, 2015. 23 Initial Study 149 PepperAvenue 24 Initial Study 149 PepperAvenue Less Than Significant or Signifieant Potentially with Less Than Signifitant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information SourtesJ: lmpatt Incorporation Impatt No Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral � � � � resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- � � � � important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion According to the San Mateo County General Plan, Mineral Resources Map, the project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. San Mateo County, General P/an, October 18, 2010. This space intentionally left blank. 25 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information Sourtes): 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, wouid 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 �evels? Discussion Less Than Significant or Significant Potentia/ly with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue No lmpact � � � � � � 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. 26 Initia) Study Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources 149 PeqqerAvenue The City of Burlingame General Plan, Buriingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated October 24, 2014;1anuary 13, 2015. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco international Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped June 3, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 27 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for exampie, 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? Less Than Significant or Signifitant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant lmpact Incorporation (mpact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue No Impact � � � 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 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. 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 June 3, 2015. The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of eurlingame, Burlingame, California, 2010. m Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Otherpublicfacilities? Significant or Potentially Significant fmpact �� I � �'. � Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation � � � � � Less Than Significant Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue No Impatt ►� /1 /1 11 '/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 projecYs 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 accommadated by the existing capacity of the two districts, resulting in a less than significant impact. 29 Initial Study 149 Pepper 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 Genera/ P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memoranda, dated October 27, 2014. City of Burlingame Website, www.burlin�ame.or� This space intentionally left blank. 30 Initial Study 149 PepperAvenue Less Than Significant or Signifitant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Signifitant Issues (ond Supporting lnformation SourtesJ: Impact Intorporation 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 eurlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 31 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Significont Mitigation Impact Incorporation 16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in � relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 149 PepperAvenue Less Than Significant Impoci No Impact ❑ ❑ � b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The site is on Pepper 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 not be increased with the proposed additions to the dwelling. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing detached garage (9'-0" x 18'-0" clear interior dimensions) provides one covered parking space for the proposed four-bedroom house. One uncovered space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. The proposed project meets the off-stre2t parking requirement established in the zoning code. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012 Project plans date stamped June 3, 2015. 32 Issues /and Supportinq Information Sources): 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) ee 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 Potentia/ly Significant with Significont Mitigation Impact lncorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The subject property is currently occupied by a single family dwelling. Water is provided to the subject property by an existing 8-inch asbestos concrete pipe along Pepper Avenue. The proposed residence will be connected to an existing 8-inch polyvinyl chloride sewer main along Pepper 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 Pepper Avenue to Ralston Avenue and then to a catch basin at the intersection of Ralston 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 Landfill. Demand far 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. 33 Initial 149 PepperAvenue 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 Genera/ Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated October 28, 2014. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated October 29, 2014; January 14, 2015. Recology San Mateo County, www.recolo�ysanmateocountv.com , site accessed April, 2014. Project Plans date stamped June 3, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 34 Initial5tudy Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the qualiry of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but eumulative 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 149 PepperAvenue Siqnificant or Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Signifitant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No /mpact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � 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. 35 149 PEPPER AVENUE INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. Project Title: 149 Pepper Avenue, first and second story additions to an existing singl2 family residence and with a detached garage 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. 4. 5. Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: R-1 William Meeker, Community Development Director (650) 558-7250 149 Pepper Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 Jill and Derek Johnson 149 PepperAvenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Low-Density Residential APN: 028-263-060 8. Description of the Project: The proposal is to add first and second story additions to the existing one and one-half story single family dwelling on site at 149 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing detached garage on site will not be altered. The proposed new structures would cover 35% (3,565 SF) of the 10,230 SF lot, where 40% (4,092 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 4,396 SF (0.43 FAR) where 4,714 SF (0.46 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing detached garage (9'-0" x 18'-0" clear interior dimensions) provides one covered parking space for the proposed four-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space would be provided in the driveway. The applicant has applied for Design Review for a second story addition to the existing house and a Conditional Use Permit for existing glazed openings within 10 feet of a property line in the detached garage. 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 Burlingame Park No. 3 Subdivision, in the southern portion of Burlingame, west of EI Camino Real. The original house on the parcel (built in 1924) remains on the property today, though it has been added to and extensively remodeled. 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 one block to the west and the City of San Mateo �ies one block to the south of the subject property and the Downtown Burlingame Commercial Area lies 0.5 miles 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 Impacts Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation / Traffic ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: � I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature William Meeker Printed Name July 2, 2015 Date City of Burlin�ame For 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 Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigotion Significant Impact Incorporation Impatt ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � � No Impact � � � � The subject site slopes upward from the curb to the rear property line by approximately 17 feet. The existing house is a one and one-half story single family dweliing. Due to the slope on the lot, there are two stories at the front of the house and a single story at the rear. There is a porte cochere at the left front side of the house that extends to the left side property line and a detached garage at the rear, left side of the lot. The proposed project consists of first and second story additions at the front of the house and expanding the existing half story on the lower level by excavating toward the rear of the house. The project is subject to residential Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit for the detached garage to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed house would cover 35% (3,565 SF) of the 10,230 SF lot, where 40% (4,092 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The house would have a total floor area of 4,396 SF (0.43 FAR) where 4,714 SF (0.46 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing height as measured from average top of curb is 31'-1". The height of the addition will be 22'-7" and an existing roof ridge will be extended at a height of 29'-3", where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed. The house will be set back 59'-8" from the front property line where 57'-5" is the minimum required. Exterior materials on the proposed house include a standing seam metal roof, cement trellis columns, and a metal trellis roof. Although no work is proposed to the existing detached garage with this application, the applicant is applying for a Conditional Use Permit to permit existing windows and skylights in the detached garage that were installed without the benefit of permits at some time in the fast 10 years. 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 addition and the new trees 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. 5 Initial Study 149 PepperAvenue City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 — Electrica/ Code, Burlingame, California, 2010 edition. Project plans date stamped June 3, 2015. Site Visit, March 24, 2015. Initial Study Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant 149 PepperAvenue Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact lncorporation 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 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 P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Project plans date stamped June 3, 2015. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. 7 Initial Study Less Than Signifitant or Significant Potentia/ly with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact /ncorporation Impact No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ � applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ � � substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) d) e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � Discussion ❑ � 149 Pepper Avenue The proposed application is for first and second story additions to an existing one a half 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 Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012. � Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federaily 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 conservation plan? Discussion Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significont Mitigation Significant lmpact Intorporation (mpact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue No lmpact � � � � � � The site currently has an existing single family residence and detached garage. There are several existing trees on site, but none of the existing trees meet 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 the seven new landscape trees will be planted throughout the site, including 2, 24-inch box size Palo Verde (or similar) trees at the front entry to the residence and 5 Gingko Biloba along the left side property line towards the front of the lot. There are 3 existing landscape trees on site that will remain. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources 0 Initial Study 149 Pepper Avenue 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 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game. Project plans date stamped June 3, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 10 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting lnformation Sourtesf: 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 Significant or Siqnificant Potentfo/ly with Less Than Significant Mitigation Signifitant Impact Intorporation Impatt ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue No Impatt ❑ � � � The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 3 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 August 28, 2013. 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 149 Pepper 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 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 149 Pepper 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. The house does convey contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Burlingame Park, but it does not stand out as a first, only, or unique example of such development. Therefore, the property does rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for register inclusion under Criterion A/1. 11 Initial Study 149 PepperAvenue The house at 149 Pepper Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under Criterion 2(Persons) for its association with the lives of persons important to local, California, or nation history. The house has changed ownership several times since it was constructed. None of the owners or occupants appears to have made important contributions to national, state, or local history that meet the significance threshold for historic register inclusion under Criterion B/2. The house at 149 Pepper 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 or that represents the work of a master. The building is commensurate with the size of residences constructed along Pepper Avenue in the Burlingame Park neighborhood. However, the English Cottage style house has been remodeled since it was constructed, and it no longer fits into any distinctive style; therefore it is not a prominent example of a style that stands out among other neighborhood examples. The architect and builder are unknown and therefore cannot be considered masters. Consequently, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for register inclusion 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 149 Pepper Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4(Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. The house at 149 Pepper Avenue retains integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association. The building remains in its original location, and retains its use as a single family residence. The surrounding Burlingame Park neighborhood remains a residential area characterized by single-family residences. It represents an early period of residential development in Burlingame. Lot sizes and building scales have changed little since the neighborhood's original conception, helping to maintain the area's sense of setting and feeling. The property has undergone several major alterations in recent years. At the front of the house, the historic primary entrance has been removed. The entry stairs have been widened, moved and paved in contemporary stone, and the chimney has been rebuilt. The back of the house has been extended with a contemporary design, and the garage has been remodeled into a detached room. The landscaping in the back of the house has also been altered, as the lawn has been replaced with artificial turf and an outdoor kitchen has been added. Therefore, integrity of design, materials and workmanship have been compromised. 149 Pepper Avenue contributes to the historic significance of the neighborhood, but fails on an individual level to convey its historic significance as an early 20th century residence. Overall the property does not retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance for the purposes of this evaluation. 149 Pepper Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California or National Register under any criteria. The property is a well-maintained residence constructed during a busy era of development is the Burlingame Park subdivision, but it is not individually significant for this association. It has no association with notable persons, and is not the work of a master architect or builder. The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of "6Z" has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was "found ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or local designation through survey evaluation. This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth-century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood's e►igibility as a historic district." 12 Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources 149 Pepper Avenue The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 149 Pepper Avenue, Historica/ Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbu/l, Inc., dated August 28, 2013 This space intentionally left b/ank. 13 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourtesJ: 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, inciuding 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 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant lmpact U Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation u ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue Less Than Significont Impact No Impact � ►_� ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � 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 over 6,000 SF in area. There will be less seismic exposure to peopie and equipment than at present, since the remodeled areas and additions will comply with current California Buiiding 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. 14 Initial Study Sources 149 PepperAvenue ihe City of eurlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps, http://�is.aba�.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 Cumu/ative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated October 24, 2014; January 13, 2015. Project Plans date stamped June 3, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 15 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion Less Than Significant Potential/y with Less Than Significant Mitigation Signifitant Impatt Intorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact � � 149 PepperAvenue 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, resuft 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 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 16 Initial Study 149 Pepper Avenue BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010 (Tabie 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. fn 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. 17 Initial Study Sources 149 PepperAvenue 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 October 24, 2014; January 13, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. F�:3 Initial Study 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 pian? 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 Significont or Significant Potentia/ly with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impatt ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue 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. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 19 Initial Study Sources: 149 PepperAvenue The City of Burlingame Genera/ P/an, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. State of Ca/ifornia 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 June 3, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 20 Initial Study Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigation Issues (and Supportinq Information SourcesJ: _ lmpoct Incorporation 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste � � discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or � � interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of � � the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the � � site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would � � exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? � � g) h) i) 1) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a 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 flows? 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? Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue Less Than Signifitant Impact No /mpact ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ � The proposed project is first and second story additions totaling 479 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. 21 Initial5tudy 149 PepperAvenue 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, Tit/e 26, Chapter26.16—Physical Design of /mprovements, Burlingame, California. E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, October 16, 2012. City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated October 28, 2014. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated October 29, 2014; January 14, 2015. Project plans date stamped June 3, 2015. 22 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 149 PepperAvenue Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significont Impact Incorporotion Impact No Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? C ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � 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 pian? Discussion ❑ ❑ � The subject property is currently occupied by a one and one-half story single family dwelling and detached garage and the proposed project will add 479 SF of floor area to the site. The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 SF for lots in this area, based on City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 712. This existing lot is 10,230 square feet in area and is not part of a proposed subdivision or lot adjustment. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per lot in this area. The project is subject to single family residential Design Review. The general plan would allow a density of eight units to the acre and the application is for one replacement unit on 0.23 acres, a density of 4.25 units per acre. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The subject property is within the Burlingame Park Subdivision No. 3, which abuts the Town of Hillsborough 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 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 and Conditional Use Permit 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. Projeci plans date stamped June 3, 2015. 23 Initial Study 149 PepperAvenue � Initial Study 149 PepperAvenue Less Than Significont or Significant Potentially with Less Thon Significant Mitigation Significant lssues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impatt Intorporation Impact No Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral � � � � resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- � � � � important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific pian or other land use plan? Discussion According to the San Mateo County General Plan, Mineral Resources Map, the project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. San Mateo County, Genera/ Plan, October 18, 2010. This space intentionally left blank. 25 Initial Study Issues (and Supportinq 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 Potentiolly with Less Than Significont Mitigation Signifitant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue 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. � Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources 149 PepperAvenue The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California. City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated October 24, 2014; January 13, 2015. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012. Project plans date stamped June 3, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 27 Initial Study Issues (ond Supporting Information SourcesJ: 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion Less Than Significant or Significant Potential/y with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impatt Incorporation Impoct ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ n U 149 Pepper Avenue No Impatt � � � 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 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. 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 June 3, 2015. The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 2010. �:3 initial Study Issues (and Supporting Informotion Sourtes): 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other perFormance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Significant or Potentially Significant impact � � � � � Less Than Significant with Mitigation Ineorporation � � � � � Less Than Significant Impact � � � � � 149 Pepper Avenue No Impact /1 /� ►1 �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. 29 Initial Study 149 Pepper 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 October 27, 2014. City of Burlingame Website, www.burlin�ame.or� This space intentionally left blank. 30 Initial Study 149 Pepper Avenue Less Than Significant or Significont Potentiolly with less Thon Significant Mitigation Signifitont Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation Impoct No Impatt 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 dweliing, 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. 31 Initial Study Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigotion Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Intorporation 16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ❑ � relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Resuit in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 149 PepperAvenue Less Thon Significant Impoct No Impatt ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The site is on Pepper 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 not be increased with the proposed additions to the dwelling. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing detached garage (9'-0" x 18'-0" clear interior dimensions) provides one covered parking space for the proposed four-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 Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012 Project plans date stamped June 3, 2015. 32 Issues (and Supportina Information Sourcesl: 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Resuit 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 Significont or Less Than Potentia/ly Significant with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporotion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Impatt No Impact ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � The subject property is currently occupied by a singie family dwelling. Water is provided to the subject property by an existing 8-inch asbestos concrete pipe along Pepper Avenue. The proposed residence will be connected to an existing 8-inch polyvinyl chloride sewer main along PepperAvenue. 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 Pepper Avenue to Ralston Avenue and then to a catch basin at the intersection of Ralston 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 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. 33 - Initiai Study 149 PepperAvenue 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 recyc�e 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 Memorandum dated October 28, 2014. City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated October 29, 2014; January 14, 2015. Recology San Mateo County, www.recologysanmateocounty.com , site accessed April, 2014. Project Plans date stamped June 3, 2015. This space intentionally left blank. 34 Initial Study Signifitant or Potential/y Significant Issues (ond Supporting lnformation Sources): Impact 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the � quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a piant 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 149 Pepper Avenue Less Than Signifitant with Less Than Mitigotion Significont Incorporation lmpact No Impatt ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ►1 ►1I �� 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. 35