Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2812 Easton Drive - CEQA DocumentsCITY OF BURLINGAME NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND-515-P, 2812 Easton Drive, Creek Enclosure Permit The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on February 8, 2001, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: (XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment (XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Project Description: The applicant, Basil N. Mufarreh, is requesting approval of a creek enclosure permit in order to extend an existing 4' by 3' high concrete culvert for a distance of 24 feet. Easton Creek, a creek which drains the surrounding hillside area to the San Francisco Bay, traverses the front yard of the property. There is an existing 4' by 3' box culvert where the creek is diverted under the existing driveway and front yard. The applicant would like to pave an additional area east of the existing driveway. This would require extension of the box culvert for an additional 24 feet. There is a bend in the creek at this location and it is then diverted into a 4' diameter box culvert under Easton Drive. Approximately 5 to 6 feet of the creek would remain open. Reasons for Conclusion: The project consists of the culverting of a creek in an area where the creek is already substantially enclosed. Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting findings, it is found that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Signature of Processing Official Title Date Signed Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. Date posted: ZA61 or V Declaration of Posting I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on , 2001. Appealed: ( ) Yes ( ) No ANN MUSSO, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project Title: Creek Enclosure Permit to culvert a 24' long portion of open creek on property located at 2812 Easton Drive 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Department 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Margaret Monroe, City Planner (650) 558-7250 4. Project Location: Parcel with an address of 2812 Easton Drive, Burlingame, California 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Basil N. Mufarreh 2812 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1 APN: 027-282-090 8. Description of the Project: The applicant, Basil N. Mufarreh, is requesting approval of a creek enclosure permit in order to extend an existing 4' by 3' high concrete culvert for a distance of 24 feet. Easton Creek, a creek which drains the surrounding hillside area to the San Francisco Bay, traverses the front yard of the property. There is an existing 4' by 3' box culvert where the creek is diverted under the existing driveway and front yard. The applicant would like to pave an additional area east of the existing driveway. This would require extension of the box culvert for an additional 24 feet. There is a bend in the creek at this location and it is then diverted into a 4' diameter box culvert under Easton Drive. Approximately 5 to 6 feet of the creek would remain open. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by other single family residential homes; the area across Easton Drive is within the boundaries of the Town of Hillsborough. The portion of Easton Creek which passes through this neighborhood is substantially culverted, the 30' open creek on this site is the only open creek in the immediate vicinity. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The project requires a Creek Enclosure Permit from the City of Burlingame. The project requires a Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game. The Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the project qualifies for authorization under Department of the Army Nationwide Permit 18, Minor Fill Discharges, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The project must comply with the General Conditions for the Nationwide Permit. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at Ieast one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pagS. Land Use and Planning X Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recreation Materials Hydrology & Water Noise Agricultural Resources Quality Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE 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. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. w Aok &-W) -om\ Margaret 14onroe, City Planner Date Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2,4 X 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 1,2,4 X zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,9,15 X community conservation plan? 2. 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)? 1,3,4 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the 3 X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 3 X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 6,7,8 X effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most 6,7,8 X 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? 6,7,8 X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? 6,7,8 X iv) Landslides? 6,8 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1,6,8 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would 1,6,8 X become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 6,8 X Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 1,6 X tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1 X 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 1 X groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? 1,8,10 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, 1, 8,10 X 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 1,9 X substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,9 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 8,11 X a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would 8,11 X 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 1,8 X failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,6 X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1,12 X quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or 1,12 X projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 1,12 X 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? 1,12 X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,12 X people? 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,14 X 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? 14 X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 1,14 X substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp 2,8 X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 8 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,8 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 1,8 X alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiall-il PotentialIN, Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 7. 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? 1,9,15 X b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 1,9,15 X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US 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 1,9,15 X not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or resident 1,9,15 X 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 1,2 X resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation 1 X Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that 1,6 X 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 1,6 X plan or other land use plan? 9. 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? 1,8 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 8 X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile 1,8 X 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 16 X 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 1,13 X airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in 1 X the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 1 X emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 1 X adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of X standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, 1 or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X vibration or groundborne noise levels? 1,8 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the X project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the 1,8 project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where X such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people 13 residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the X project expose people residing or working in the project area to 1 excessive noise levels? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Na Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1 X b) Police protection? 1 X c) Schools? 1 X d) Parks? 1 X e) Other public facilities? 1 X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater 1 X 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 1 X which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from 1 X existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 1 X 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 1 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 1 X related to solid waste? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 1 X to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the 1 X site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1 X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,8 X historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,8 X archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or 1,8 X site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of 1,8 X formal cemeteries? 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and 1,8 X 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 1,8 X construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared 1 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 X Act contract? 1 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, 1 X to non-agricultural use? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but 1 X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1 X Initial Study Summary 2812 Easton Drive 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 1995 edition. 3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 1994. 4 1990 Census 5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, Revised 1981. 6 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. 7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. 8 Culvert Extension Plans, Sheets 1 through 6, date stamped May 25, 2000. 9 Biological Survey prepared by Thomas Reid Associates dated November 10, 2000 10 Engineering Memo dated May 31, 2001, regarding hydrologic calculation, erosion control and maintenance of the culvert. 11 Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, September 16, 1981 12 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December, 1995 13 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, December, 1994 14 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 1997 15 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game 16 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998 inistfrm.98 11 Land Use and Planning Summary: The site and adjacent areas are designated for low density residential uses by the Burlingame General Plan and are zoned R-1. Properties across Easton Drive from this site consist of residential uses and are within the boundaries of the Town of Hillsborough. The Conservation Element of the Burlingame General Plan notes that of the total length of creeks in Burlingame, only a small portion remain in a state approximating natural conditions, and the remaining length has been either rechanneled, concreted, undergrounded or otherwise modified. The conservation element program goal is to retain present natural sections of the creek system in a natural condition. Programs to meet that goal are to inform the public of the part creeks play in the ecosystem to instill an understanding and respect of the creek systems; and to study soil stability, vegetation and bank conditions along the creeks and regulate appropriately. Mitigation: A creek enclosure permit for the proposed culverting of a 24' section of the creek shall be required before any construction is allowed. Population and Housing Summary: This site and the surrounding area are planned for low density residential uses. The project will not result in a change to the number of housing units nor will it affect area population. Geologic Summary: The site is located in the fully developed hillside area of Burlingame, an urban setting which has been developed with single family homes for about 50 years. The site is approximately 1 mile from the San Andreas Fault but is not within the Alquist-Priola zone; the site is less than 1/2 mile from the Serra Fault, a minor thrust fault considered to have common roots with the San Andreas Fault. There are no known faults on the site. The construction of the culvert will not affect the seismic exposure of the site. The site is in the hillside area but does not have a history of landsliding. The landslide susceptibly of the site is rated at a level II, which indicates low susceptibility. Four broad soil groups exist in Burlingame. This site is listed as consisting of gouge and sheared shale with hard blocks, and sandstone, soft to hard. Under seismic conditions this area has high susceptibility to slope failure, up to 25 % of the area is likely to fail in a major earthquake. This site is in an area of very low (less than 0.01 % probability) liquefaction susceptibility. Water Summary: This project involves the culverting of a 24' portion of Easton Creek between two existing culverts, with a 5 to 6 foot area proposed to remain open for maintenance access. Public Works Engineering has reviewed the application for the impact of the enclosure on flow capacity of the creek, methods of keeping the structure clear of debris, the economic life and ease of repair of the enclosure, and the horizontal alignment of the culvert and the length of the culvert. The City Engineer has reviewed the hydrologic calculations for the design and has determined that the project will not impact the flow of the creek. Mitigation: ■ All applicable requirements of NPDES for runoff and drainage will be adhered to in the design and during construction. ■ There shall be a curb placed at the edge of the new driveway to direct stormwater drainage to the street and away from the creek Air Quality Summary: No objectionable odors or alteration in air movement, moisture, temperature or change in local or regional climate is anticipated to occur as a result of this proposal. The project will not result in an increase in traffic, and therefore will not have an affect on air quality based on vehicle emissions. Initial Study Summary 2812 Easton Drive Mitigation: ■ The site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. ■ Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Transportation/Circulation Summary: The proposed project will not result in an increase in traffic and will not adversely impact area traffic or the street system. Biological Resources Summary: Since the project involves the culverting of an existing creek, it requires a Streambed Alteration Permit from the State Department of Fish and Game. Generally, the Department of Fish and Game encourages the protection of stream beds and discourages the removal of a piece of natural landscape and topography. The applicant has submitted a Biological Survey of the area where the culvert would be extended to enclose the 24' of the open creek prepared by Thomas Reid Associates. The survey notes that the property consists of a single family home and yard within a developed residential neighborhood. On the southeast side of the property, adjacent to the front driveway and sidewalk, there is an approximately 30-foot long section of Easton Creek that is open. The creek is culverted on both sides of this opening for at least one hundred feet in both directions. At the time of the survey, the creek was flowing with water at a depth of four inches. Vegetation along the creek banks in the open section includes one resprouting red willow stump; and umbrella sedge and willow herb growing along the water's edge. Weedy species at the top of the banks include mustard, wild lettuce and bristly ox-tongue. Easton Creek flows through a steep canyon to the west of the project site. The canyon contains dense coast live oak and bay forest, and has houses built along side and over the creek in several places. The creek maintains a natural channel in some places, while in others it has been modified with rock walls and other bank protection; in some cases the creek flows under homes through culverts. Many areas of the creek are dominated by non-native species such as English ivy and periwinkle. Downstream of the project site the creek is culverted through most of the City of Burlingame, before entering San Francisco Bay. A California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search of the site revealed that no sensitive species have been recorded within at least two miles of the subject property. Due to the disturbed condition of the creek, it is unlikely the creek would support any of the sensitive species found in the surrounding region. In the opinion of the survey preparer, the only sensitive species that have a remote possibility of occurring near the project site are California red -legged frog and Steelhead. California Red -legged d Frog; (Rana aurora draytonnii): California red -legged frogs are a Federally -listed threatened species. They will sometimes use creek habitats, however it is unlikely this species would use Easton Creek (especially in the vicinity of the project site) based on the extent of culverts on the creek, and the lack of any California Red -legged Frog observations within or near the watershed. The closest recorded observation of a California Red -legged Frog is approximately 2.4 miles away near San Francisco International Airport (source: CNDDB, May 2000). 13 Initial Study Summary 2812 Easton Drive Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Steelhead are a federally -listed Threatened species (Central California ESU). Steelhead are know to occur in some of the larger drainages of San Francisco Bay (i.e. Alameda Creek, San Francisquito Creek, Guadalupe River, and a few others). Due to the small size of this drainage and the extent of culverts, Easton Creek (especially in the vicinity of the project site) is unlikely to provide habitat for steelhead. The Biological Survey concluded that based upon the disturbed condition of the creek in the project vicinity, the site is unlikely to provide habitat for any sensitive species. A small 6' area of the property adjacent to the creek (east side) will not be culverted as a part of this project. This area should be planted with native riparian species to mitigate for the loss of riparian vegetation in the creek. Plants used should be herbaceous and/or small shrubs so as not to block the view of oncoming traffic. Mitigation: ■ The applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit from the State Department of Fish and Game. The area adjacent to the remaining creek bed shall be planted with native riparian plant species to mitigate for the loss of riparian vegetation in the creek; plants used shall be herbaceous and/or small shrubs so as not to block the view of oncoming traffic. Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: The amount of energy used to culvert the creek is negligible. Substantial amounts of fuel will not be needed to construct, develop or maintain the project. Hazards Summary: This project is not expected to expose people to health hazards, nor is it expected to create a health hazard. Noise Summary: The site is impacted by noise from traffic on adjacent Easton Drive and from aircraft landings and takeoffs at San Francisco International Airport, which is located about 2 1/2 miles northeast of the site. Construction activities may affect adjacent residences, and noise levels may increase during construction. Mitigation: ■ Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays, per the requirements of the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. Public Services Summary: The project is not expected to have a significant impact on the provision of other public services, as this is an urbanized area with existing public facilities in place. Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, and once built will not consume additional utilities. 14 r Initial Study Summary 2812 Easton Drive Aesthetics Summary: The project will result in the culverting of an existing open creek, with the culverted area covered with asphalt paving in order to widen an existing driveway. In order to reduce its aesthetic impact, the area remaining adjacent to the creek bed shall be landscaped with native riparian plants. Cultural Resources Summary: There are no known prehistoric or historic archeological sites at the location of the proposed culvert. Mitigation: ■ If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction, all work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented. Recreation Summary: The project will have no impact on existing recreational facilities in the project vicinity. Agricultural Resources: There is no farmland in Burlingame. Summary of Mitigation Measures: ■ A creek enclosure permit for the proposed culverting of a 24' section of the creek shall be required before any construction is allowed. ■ All applicable requirements of NPDES for runoff and drainage will be adhered to in the design and during construction. ■ The site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. ■ Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. ■ The applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit from the State Department of Fish and Game. ■ The area adjacent to the remaining creek bed shall be planted with native riparian plant species to mitigate for the loss of riparian vegetation in the creek; plant sued shall be herbaceous and/or small shrubs so as not to block the view of oncoming traffic. ■ Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays, per the requirements of the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. ■ If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction, all work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented. 15 ,jEO p_ SUBJECT TO: FILE NO. 555 County Center, First Floor Warren Slocum Redwood City, CA 94063-1665 Chief Elections Officer & Web: www.care.co.sanmateo.ca.us Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder POSTING CONFIRMATION LETTER DATE: � �O0 i RETURN OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILES AND POSTED FOR 30 DAYS. (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21092.3*) The attached document(s) was (were) received, filed and a copy was posted in the office of the County Clerk of San Mateo County on < ;?e6l and remained posted for thirty (30) calendar days. WARREN SLOCUM Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder San Mateo Coun By: M . County EIR Clerk of gUR�D�P�t�E • Section 21092.3 states: "The notices required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an Environmental Impact Report shall be posted in the office of the county clerk of each county in which the project will located and shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. The notice required pursuant to Section 21092 for a negative declaration shall be so posted for a period of 20 days, unless otherwise required by law to be posted for 30 days. The county clerk shall post the notices within 24 hours of receipt." PostmgConf.Ltr `ti JO.- i, NOTICE OF DETERMINATION i la N 1 • /1 /1 Office of Planning and Research P.O Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 County Clerk FROM: CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road LED me CA 94010 AI County of San Mateo APR 19 2001 401 County Center, Sixth Floor MWSLOCUM, CounRedwood City, California 94063l Clerk SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section' of the Public Resources Code. File No. ND- 515 P, 2812 Easton Drive, Burlingame, Ca, extension of box culvert to provide a driveway turnaround Project Title 2001022036 Margaret Monroe (650) 558-7253 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 2812 Easton Drive, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a creek enclosure permit in order to extend an existing 4' by 3' high concrete culvert for a distance of 24 feet. Easton Creek, a creek which drains the surrounding hillside area to the San Francisco Bay, traverses the front yard of the property. There is an existing 4' by 3' box culvert where the creek is diverted under the existing driveway and front yard. The applicant would like to pave an additional area east of the existing driveway. This would require extension of the box culvert for an additional 24 feet. There is a bend in the creek at this location and it is then diverted into a 4' diameter box culvert under Easton Drive. Approximately 5 to 6 feet of the creek would remain open. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above -described project on April 16, 2001 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project [E]will ® will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: Citv of Burlingame. Planning Devartment. 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 [F]was ®was not] adopted for this project. 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, Planning Department, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. Monroe, City Planner Date California Department of Fish and Game CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title/Location (include county): File No. ND- 515 P, 2812 Easton Drive, Burlingame, San Mateo County, California, extension of box culvert to provide a driveway turnaround. Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a creek enclosure permit in order to extend an existing 4' by 3' high concrete culvert for a distance of 24 feet. Easton Creek, a creek which drains the surrounding hillside area to the San Francisco Bay, traverses the front yard of the property. There is an existing 4' by 3' box culvert where the creek is diverted under the existing driveway and front yard. The applicant would like to pave an additional area east of the existing driveway. This would require extension of the box culvert for an additional 24 feet. There is a bend in the creek at this location and it is then diverted into a 4' diameter box culvert under Easton Drive. Approximately 5 to 6 feet of the creek would remain open. Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary): The City of Burlingame finds that on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received there is no substantial evidence the proposed project will have a significant effect on wildlife or its habitat. The initial study included analysis of a biological survey prepared for the project. It was determined that there are no sensitive plant or animal species within 1 1/2 miles of the project and, therefore, the project will not impact wildlife resources. The attached evaluation provides additional documentation and support for this finding. Certification: I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. �6vk�wo_- Chief lanning Official Title: City Planner Lead Agency: City of Burlingame Date April 17, 2001 Z Warren Slocum Chief Elections Officer & Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder RECEIPT # 46726 Clerk: LSANCHEZ 04/19/2001 02:16P DOC TYPE: ENVIRONMENTAL FEE -NEGATIVE DEC FEE: 25.00 TOTAL FEE ---------------> CHECK 6303 ----> TOTAL PAYMENTS ----------> Page 1 25.00 25.00 25.00 555 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063-1665 web www.care.co.sanmateo.ca.us Assessor Clerk Recorder phone 650.363.4500 fox 650.363.1903 phone 650.363.4712 fax 650.363.4843 phone 650.363.4713 fox 650.599.7386 email assessor@care.co.sanmateo.ca.us email clerk@care.co.sanmateo.ca.us email recorder@care.co.sanmateo.ca.us Qr O > o- s- o NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ® Office of Planning and Research P.O Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 ® County Clerk County of San Mateo 401 County Center, Sixth Floor Redwood City, California 94063 FROM: CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PrimrW�Road AEQWMOz4,OF SAN MATEO cot N Y, CAi.i APR 19 2001 . WA0CUr Count Clerk By ' � r7pe2 EPUTY CLERK SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. File No. ND- 515 P, 2812 Easton Drive, Burlingame Ca extension of box culvert to provide a driveway turnaround Project Title 2001022036 Margaret Monroe (650) 558-7253 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 2812 Easton Drive, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a creek enclosure permit in order to extend an existing 4' by Thigh concrete culvert for a distance of 24 feet. Easton Creek, a creek which drains the surrounding hillside area to the San Francisco Bay, traverses the front yard of the property. There is an existing 4' by 3' box culvert where the creek is diverted under the existing driveway and front yard. The applicant would like to pave an additional area east of the existing driveway. This would require extension of the box culvert for an additional 24 feet. There is a bend in the creek at this location and it is then diverted into a 4' diameter box culvert under Easton Drive. Approximately 5 to 6 feet of the creek would remain open. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above -described project on April 16, 2001 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, Planning Department 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 [E]was ®was not] adopted for this project. 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 Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010. -KA V I VW I I\Y--- April 17 Monroe, City Planner Date I California Department of Fish and Game CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title/Location (include county): File No. ND- 515 P, 2812 Easton Drive, Burlingame, San Mateo County, California, extension of box culvert to provide a driveway turnaround. Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a creek enclosure permit in order to extend an existing 4' by 3' high concrete culvert for a distance of 24 feet. Easton Creek, a creek which drains the surrounding hillside area to the San Francisco Bay, traverses the front yard of the property. There is an existing 4' by 3' box culvert where the creek is diverted under the existing driveway and front yard. The applicant would like to pave an additional area east of the existing driveway. This would require extension of the box culvert for an additional 24 feet. There is a bend in the creek at this location and it is then diverted into a 4' diameter box culvert under Easton Drive. Approximately 5 to 6 feet of the creek would remain open. Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary): The City of Burlingame finds that on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received there is no substantial evidence the proposed project will have a significant effect on wildlife or its habitat. The initial study included analysis of a biological survey prepared for the project. It was determined that there are no sensitive plant or animal species within 1 lh miles of the project and, therefore, the project will not impact wildlife resources. The attached evaluation provides additional documentation and support for this finding. Certification: I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. K6VAAA at-, Chief Iflanning Official Title: City Planner Lead Agency: City of Burlingame Date April 17, 2001 Form A Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, PO Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 916/445-0613 Project Title: Creek Enclosure Permit at 2812 Easton Lead Agency: City Of Burlingame Street Address: 501 Primrose Road SCH # Drive Contact Person: Maureen Brooks Phone: (650) 558-7253 City: Burlingame, CA Zip: 94010 County: San Mateo Project Location: County: San Mateo City/Nearest Community: Burlingame Cross Streets: Easton Drive /Alvarado Avenue Zip Code: 94010 Total Acres: 0.31 Acre Assessor's Parcel No. 027-282-090 Section: Twp. Range: Base: Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 280 Waterways: Easton Creek Airports: San Francisco IntRailways: Schools: ----------------------------------------- Document Type: CEQA: ❑ NOP ❑ Supplement/Subsequent EIR NEPA: ❑ NOI Other: ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Cons (Prior SCH No.) ❑ EA ❑ Final Document Neg Dec ❑ Other ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Other ❑ Draft EIR ❑ FONSI Local Action Type: ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Community Plan ------------------------------------ ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Site Plan ❑ Use Permit ❑ Land Division (Subdivision, ❑ Coastal Permit etc.) [XJ OtherCreek En losure rmi t Development Type: ❑ Residential: ❑ Office: ❑ Commercial: ❑ Industrial: ❑ Educational ❑ Recreational Units Acres Sqft. Acres Employees Sq.ft. Acres Employees Sgft. Acres Employees ❑ Water Facilities: Type MGD ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Power: Type Watts ❑ Waste Treatment: Type ❑ Hazardous Waste: Type (30ther: Creek Enclosure ----------------------------------------- Funding (approx.): Federal $ 0 State $ 0 Total $ ----------------------------------------- Project Issues Discussed in Document: ❑ Aesthetic/Visual ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Air Quality ❑ Archeological/Historical Coastal Zone Drainage/Absorption ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Fiscal ❑ Flood Plain/Flooding ❑ Forest Land/Fire Hazard ❑ Geologic/Seismic ❑ Minerals ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing Balance ❑ Public Services/Facilities ❑ Recreation/Parks ❑ Schools/Universities ❑ Septic Systems ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ❑ Solid Waste ❑ Toxic/Hazardous ❑ Traffic/Circulation ® Vegetation 1g] Water Quality ❑ Water Supply/Groundwater ❑ Wetland/Riparian Wildlife ❑ Growth Inducing ❑ Landuse ❑ Cumulative Effects ❑ Other Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: Single Family Residence, Zoned R-1, General Plan Designation — Low Density Residential ----------------------------------------- Project Description: Creek enclosure permit to extend an existing culvert for a distance of 24 feet; covering the culvert and extending an existing driveway in the front yard of an existing single family residence. Revised3-31-99 23 Reviewing Agencies Checklist Resources Agency Boating & Waterways Coastal Commission Coastal Conservancy Colorado River Board Conservation _Fish & Game Forestry & Fire Protection Office of Historic Preservation Parks & Recreation Reclamation Board S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation & Housing Aeronautics California Highway Patrol CALTRANS District #_ Department of Transportation Planning (headquarters) Housing & Community Development Food & Agriculture Health & Welfare Health Services Form A, continued KEY S = Document sent by lead agency X = Document sent by SCH ✓ = Suggested distribution Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board California Waste Management Board SWRCB: Clean Water Grants SWRCB: Delta Unit SWRCB: Water Quality SWRCB: Water Rights Regional WQCB # Youth & Adult Corrections Corrections Independent Commissions & Offices Energy Commission Native American Heritage Commission Public Utilities Commission Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy State Lands Commission Tahoe Regional Planning Agency State & Consumer Services Other General Services OLA (Schools) ----------------------------------------- Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date February 9. 2001 Ending Date March 12, 2000 Signature Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Consulting Firm: Kavanagh Rhl inPPY Address: 70A (.argil nn Avani City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94010 Contact: Charles Kavanagh Phone: ( -) Applicant• Basil N. Mufarreh Address: 2812 Easton Drive City/State/Zip: Burl ingamg, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 344-9775 Date February 8, 2001 For SCH Use Only: Date Received at SCH Date Review Starts Date to Agencies Date to SCH Clearance Date Notes: ` STATE OF CALIFORNIA QF ELF PIANN \C \V,1,N k �o ° - Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Gray Davis Steve Nissen GOVERNOR DIRECTOR March 13, 2001 R E C� I V E j MAR 1 5 200, Maureen Brooks City of Burlingame CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road PLANNING DEPT. Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Creek Enclosure Permit at 2812 Easton Drive SCH#: 2001022036 Dear Maureen Brooks: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on March 12, 2001, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above -named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, 414� Terry Roberts Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3o18 WWW.OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.HTML �1 Document Details Report RECEIVED State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2001022036 MAR 1 5 2001 Project Title Creek Enclosure Permit at 2812 Easton Drive Lead Agency Burlingame, City of CITY O F BUR PLANNING DEPTD E PT M E . Type Neg Negative Declaration Description Creek enclosure permit to extend an existing culvert for a distance of 24 feet; covering the culvert and extending an existing driveway in the front yard of an existing single family residence. Lead Agency Contact Name Maureen Brooks Agency City of Burlingame Phone 650 558-7253 Fax email Address 501 Primrose Road City Burlingame State CA Zip 94010 Project Location County San Mateo City Burlingame Region Cross Streets Easton Drive and Alvarado Avenue Parcel No. 027-282-090 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 280 Airports San Francisco International Railways Waterways Easton Creek Schools Land Use Single Family Residence Zoned R-1 General Plan -Low Density Residential Project Issues Drainage/Absorption; Vegetation; Water Quality; Wildlife Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission; Caltrans, District 4; State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission Date Received 02/09/2001 Start of Review 02/09/2001 End of Review 03/12/2001 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. CITY C BURLINGAME W The City of Burlingame PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 7, 2001 Kim Langel San Mateo County Hall of Justice County Manager & Board of Supervisors 400 County Center, First Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-0977 Dear Ms. Langel, CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 TEL: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 Enclosed are two copies of a Negative Declaration and Initial Study for a project at 2812 Easton Drive in Burlingame. Please stamp one copy received and return it to me. Please post the other copy of the negative declaration for the required 30-day posting period (this project also when to the State Clearinghouse for review and requires a 30-day review period) and return it in the enclosed envelope when the posting period is done. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call me at (650) 558-7253. Sincerely, -N.t., eon Maureen Brooks Senior Planner Enclosures: Negative Declaration (2) Envelopes (1) CITY OF BURLINGAME NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND-515-P, 2812 Easton Drive, Creek Enclosure Permit The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on February 8, 2001, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: (XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment (XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Project Description: The applicant, Basil N. Mufarreh, is requesting approval of a creek enclosure permit in order to extend an existing 4' by 3' high concrete culvert for a distance of 24 feet. Easton Creek, a creek which drains the surrounding hillside area to the San Francisco Bay, traverses the front yard of the property. There is an existing 4' by 3' box culvert where the creek is diverted under the existing driveway and front yard. The applicant would like to pave an additional area east of the existing driveway. This would require extension of the box culvert for an additional 24 feet. There is a bend in the creek at this location and it is then diverted into a 4' diameter box culvert under Easton Drive. Approximately 5 to 6 feet of the creek would remain open. Reasons for Conclusion: The project consists of the culverting of a creek in an area where the creek is already substantially enclosed. Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting findings, it is found that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Signature of Processing Official Title Date Signed Unless appealed within>O days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. Date posted: 2 $ D Declaration of Posting I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. �Q Executed at Burlingame, California on , 2001. " �F Appealed: ( ) Yes ( ) No ANN MUSSO, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME ��90�/�v/ 'V/ IN THE FEB 0 8 2001 CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERl"SORS INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project Title: Creek Enclosure Permit to culvert a 24' long portion of open creek on property located at 2812 Easton Drive 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Department 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Margaret Monroe, City Planner (650) 558-7250 4. Project Location: Parcel with an address of 2812 Easton Drive, Burlingame, California 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Basil N. Mufarreh 2812 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1 APN: 027-282-090 8. Description of the Project: The applicant, Basil N. Mufarreh, is requesting approval of a creek enclosure permit in order to extend an existing 4' by 3' high concrete culvert for a distance of 24 feet. Easton Creek, a creek which drains the surrounding hillside area to the San Francisco Bay, traverses the front yard of the property. There is an existing 4' by 3' box culvert where the creek is diverted under the existing driveway and front yard. The applicant would like to pave an additional area east of the existing driveway. This would require extension of the box culvert for an additional 24 feet. There is a bend in the creek at this location and it is then diverted into a 4' diameter box culvert under Easton Drive. Approximately 5 to 6 feet of the creek would remain open. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by other single family residential homes; the area across Easton Drive is within the boundaries of the Town of Hillsborough. The portion of Easton Creek which passes through this neighborhood is substantially culverted, the 30' open creek on this site is the only open creek in the immediate vicinity. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The project requires a Creek Enclosure Permit from the City of Burlingame. The project requires a Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game. The Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the project qualifies for authorization under Department of the Army Nationwide Permit 18, Minor Fill Discharges, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The project must comply with the General Conditions for the Nationwide Permit. 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 pagS. Land Use and Planning X Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recreation Materials Hydrology & Water Noise Agricultural Resources Quality Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE 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. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 8 2Mk Margaret Wonroe, City Planner Date Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2,4 X 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 1,2,4 X zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,9,15 X community conservation plan? 2. 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)? 1,3,4 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the 3 X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 3 X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 6,7,8 X effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most 6,7,8 X 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? 6,7,8 X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? 6,7,8 X iv) Landslides? 6,8 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1,6,8 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would 1,6,8 X become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 6,8 X Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 1,6 X tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1 X 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 1 X groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? 1,8,10 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, 1, 8,10 X 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 1,9 X substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,9 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 8,11 X a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would 8,11 X 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 1,8 X failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,6 X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1,12 X quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or 1,12 X projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 1,12 X 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? 1,12 X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,12 X people? 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,14 X 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? 14 X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 1,14 X substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp 2,8 X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 8 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,8 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 1,8 X alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially- Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 7. 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? 1,9,15 X b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 1,9,15 X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US 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 1,9,15 X not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or resident 1,9,15 X 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 1,2 X resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation 1 X Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that 1,6 X 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 1,6 X plan or other land use plan? 9. 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? 1,8 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 8 X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile 1,8 X 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 16 X 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 1,13 X 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 1 X the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 1 X emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 1 X adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of X standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, 1 or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X vibration or groundborne noise levels? 1,8 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the X project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the 1,8 project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where X such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people 13 residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the X project expose people residing or working in the project area to 1 excessive noise levels? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1 X b) Police protection? 1 X c) Schools? 1 X d) Parks? 1 X e) Other public facilities? 1 X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater 1 X 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 1 X which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from 1 X existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 1 X 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 1 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 1 X related to solid waste? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 1 X to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potential!, Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the 1 X site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1 X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,8 X historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,8 X archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or 1,8 X site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of 1,8 formal cemeteries? X 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and 1,8 X 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 1,8 X construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared 1 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 X Act contract? 1 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, 1 X to non-agricultural use? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but 1 X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1 X We Initial Study Sunitnary 2812 Easton Drive 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 1995 edition. 3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 1994. 4 1990 Census 5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, Revised 1981. 6 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. 7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. 8 Culvert Extension Plans, Sheets 1 through 6, date stamped May 25, 2000. 9 Biological Survey prepared by Thomas Reid Associates dated November 10, 2000 10 Engineering Memo dated May 31, 2001, regarding hydrologic calculation, erosion control and maintenance of the culvert. 11 Map of Approximate Locations of 100 year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, September 16, 1981 12 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December, 1995 13 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, December, 1994 14 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 1997 15 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game 16 j State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998 inistfrm.98 11 Land Use and Planning Summary: The site and adjacent areas are designated for low density residential uses by the Burlingame General Plan and are zoned R-1. Properties across Easton Drive from this site consist of residential uses and are within the boundaries of the Town of Hillsborough. The Conservation Element of the Burlingame General Plan notes that of the total length of creeks in Burlingame, only a small portion remain in a state approximating natural conditions, and the remaining length has been either rechanneled, concreted, undergrounded or otherwise modified. The conservation element program goal is to retain present natural sections of the creek system in a natural condition. Programs to meet that goal are to inform the public of the part creeks play in the ecosystem to instill an understanding and respect of the creek systems; and to study soil stability, vegetation and bank conditions along the creeks and regulate appropriately. Mitigation: A creek enclosure permit for the proposed culverting of a 24' section of the creek shall be required before any construction is allowed. Population and Housing Summary: This site and the surrounding area are planned for low density residential uses. The project will not result in a change to the number of housing units nor will it affect area population. Geologic Summary: The site is located in the fully developed hillside area of Burlingame, an urban setting which has been developed with single family homes for about 50 years. The site is approximately 1 mile from the San Andreas Fault but is not within the Alquist-Priola zone; the site is less than 1/2 mile from the Serra Fault, a minor thrust fault considered to have common roots with the San Andreas Fault. There are no known faults on the site. The construction of the culvert will not affect the seismic exposure of the site. The site is in the hillside area but does not have a history of landsliding. The landslide susceptibly of the site is rated at a level H, which indicates low susceptibility. Four broad soil groups exist in Burlingame. This site is listed as consisting of gouge and sheared shale with hard blocks, and sandstone, soft to hard. Under seismic conditions this area has high susceptibility to slope failure, up to 25 % of the area is likely to fail in a major earthquake. This site is in an area of very low (less than 0.01 % probability) liquefaction susceptibility_ Water Summary: This project involves the culverting of a 24' portion of Easton Creek between two existing culverts, with a 5 to 6 foot area proposed to remain open for maintenance access. Public Works Engineering has reviewed the application for the impact of the enclosure on flow capacity of the creek, methods of keeping the structure clear of debris, the economic life and ease of repair of the enclosure, and the horizontal alignment of the culvert and the length of the culvert. The City Engineer has reviewed the hydrologic calculations for the design and has determined that the project will not impact the flow of the creek. Mitigation: ■ All applicable requirements of NPDES for runoff and drainage will be adhered to in the design and during construction. ■ There shall be a curb placed at the edge of the new driveway to direct storrnwater drainage to the street and away from the creek Air Quality Summary: No objectionable odors or alteration in air movement, moisture, temperature or change in local or regional climate is anticipated to occur as a result of this proposal. The project will not result in an increase in traffic, and therefore will not have an affect on air quality based on vehicle emissions. Initial Study Summary 2812 Easton .give Mitigation: ■ The site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. ■ Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Transportation/Circulation Summary: The proposed project will not result in an increase in traffic and will not adversely impact area traffic or the street system. Biological Resources Summary: Since the project involves the culverting of an existing creek, it requires a Streambed Alteration Permit from the State Department of Fish and Game. Generally, the Department of Fish and Game encourages the protection of stream beds and discourages the removal of a piece of natural landscape and topography. The applicant has submitted a Biological Survey of the area where the culvert would be extended to enclose the 24' of the open creek prepared by Thomas Reid Associates. The survey notes that the property consists of a single family home and yard within a developed residential neighborhood. On the southeast side of the property, adjacent to the front driveway and sidewalk, there is an approximately 30-foot long section of Easton Creek that is open. The creek is culverted on both sides of this opening for at least one hundred feet in both directions. At the time of the survey, the creek was flowing with water at a depth of four inches. Vegetation along the creek banks in the open section includes one resprouting red willow stump; and umbreHa sedge and willow herb growing along the water's edge. Weedy species at the top of the banks include mustard, wild lettuce and bristly ox-tongue. Easton Creek flows through a steep canyon to the west of the project site. The canyon contains dense coast live oak and bay forest, and has houses built along side and over the creek in several places. The creek maintains a natural channel in some places, while in others it has been modified with rock walls and other bank protection; in some cases the creek flows under homes through culverts. Many areas of the creek are dominated by non-native species such as English ivy and periwinkle. Downstream of the project site the creek is culverted through most of the City of Burlingame, before entering San Francisco Bay. A California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search of the site revealed that no sensitive species have been recorded within at least two miles of the subject property. Due to the disturbed condition of the creek, it is unlikely the creek would support any of the sensitive species found in the surrounding region. In the opinion of the survey preparer, the only sensitive species that have a remote possibility of occurring near the project site are California red -legged frog and Steelhead. California Red -leg eta (Rana aurora draytonnii): California red -legged frogs are a Federally-Iisted threatened species. They will sometimes use creek habitats, however it is unlikely this species would use Easton Creek (especially in the vicinity of the project site) based on the extent of culverts on the creek, and the lack of any California Red -legged Frog observations within or near the watershed. The closest recorded observation of a California Red -legged Frog is approximately 2.4 miles away near San Francisco International Airport (source: CNDDB, May 2000). 13 r Initial Study Summary 2812 Easton Drive Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Steelhead are a federally -listed Threatened species (Central California ESU). Steelhead are know to occur in some of the larger drainages of San Francisco Bay (i.e. Alameda Creek, San Francisquito Creek, Guadalupe River, and a few others). Due to the small size of this drainage and the extent of culverts, Easton Creek (especially in the vicinity of the project site) is unlikely to provide habitat for steelhead. The Biological Survey concluded that based upon the disturbed condition of the creek in the project vicinity, the site is unlikely to provide habitat for any sensitive species. A small 6' area of the property adjacent to the creek (east side) will not be culverted as a part of this project. This area should be planted with native riparian species to mitigate for the loss of riparian vegetation in the creek. Plants used should be herbaceous and/or small shrubs so as not to block the view of oncoming traffic. Mitigation: ■ The applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit from the State Department of Fish and Game. The area adjacent to the remaining creek bed shall be planted with native riparian plant species to mitigate for the loss of riparian vegetation in the creek; plants used shall be herbaceous and/or small shrubs so as not to block the view of oncoming traffic. Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: The amount of energy used to culvert the creek is negligible. Substantial amounts of fuel will not be needed to construct, develop or maintain the project. Hazards Summary: This project is not expected to expose people to health hazards, nor is it expected to create a health hazard. Noise Summary: The site is impacted by noise from traffic on adjacent Easton Drive and from aircraft landings and takeoffs at San Francisco International Airport, which is located about 2 1/2 miles northeast of the site. Construction activities may affect adjacent residences, and noise levels may increase during construction. Mitigation: ■ Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays, per the requirements of the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. Public Services Summary: The project is not expected to have a significant impact on the provision of other public services, as this is an urbanized area with existing public facilities in place. Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, and once built will not consume additional utilities. 14 I • Initial Study Suinniary 2812 Easton Drive Aesthetics Summary: The project will result in the culverting of an existing open creek, with the culverted area covered with asphalt paving in order to widen an existing driveway. In order to reduce its aesthetic impact, the area remaining adjacent to the creek bed shall be landscaped with native riparian plants. Cultural Resources Summary: There are no known prehistoric or historic archeological sites at the location of the proposed culvert. Mitigation: ■ If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction, all work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented. Recreation Summary: The project will have no impact on existing recreational facilities in the project vicinity. Agricultural Resources: There is no farmland in Burlingame. Summary of Mitigation Measures: ■ A creek enclosure permit for the proposed culverting of a 24' section of the creek shall be required before any construction is allowed. ■ All applicable requirements of NPDES for runoff and drainage will be adhered to in the design and during construction. ■ The site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. ■ Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. ■ The applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit from the State Department of Fish and Game. ■ The area adjacent to the remaining creek bed shall be planted with native riparian plant species to mitigate for the loss of riparian vegetation in the creek; plant sued shall be herbaceous and/or small shrubs so as not to block the view of oncoming traffic. ■ Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays, per the requirements of the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. ■ If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction, all work will be halted until the fording can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented. 15