HomeMy WebLinkAbout2812 Easton Drive - Staff Reports MAR-12-2001 11:24 FISH & GAME
ITEM ##4 - 2812 Easton Dr.P.02iO4
PC Meeting 3.12.01
STATE OFCALIFORNIA . THE RESOURCES AGENCY RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION
Gray Davis, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
POST OFFICE BOX47 OF PACKET
YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 046"
(a7) 944.S500
March 12, 2001
Ms. Margaret Monroe, City Planner RECEIVE
Planning Department
City of Hillsborough MAR 1 2 2001
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAME
Fax (650) 696-3790 PLANNING DEPT.
Dear Ms. Monroe:
Easton Creek Enclosure Permit, 2812 Easton Drive
Burlingame, San Mateo County
Department of Fish and Game (Department) personnel have
reviewed the Initial Study for the above property and have the
following comments.
We agree with your assessment that this activity is subject
to the notification and agreement process in the Department of
Fish and Game Code, Section 1603. Department personnel have
visited the site and prepared the conditions which will be
required for a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement after
conclusion of your review. This process will satisfy our
obligations as a Responsible Agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act. We would like to provide you with
these proposed conditions, which are currently being used in a
majority of Streambed Alteration Agreements, for inclusion in the
public review phase of this project.
Construction period extensions:
If the Operator finds more time is needed to complete the
authorized activity, the Operator shall submit a written request
for a time extension to the Department for consideration at least
15 days before the permit expiration date. A time extension of
the work period constitutes an amendment to the original
agreement. Amendments to the original agreement are issued at the
discretion of the Department.
MAR-12-2001 11:25 FISH & GAME P.03iO4
Ms. Margaret Monroe
March 12, 2001
Page Two
Work according to plans:
The Operator shall notify the Department before any
modifications are made in the project plans submitted to the
Department. Project modifications may require an amendment or a
new application.
Cease operations:
If, in the opinion of the Department, conditions arise, or
change, in such a manner as to be considered deleterious to the
stream or wildlife, operations shall cease until corrective
measures are taken.
Transferring agreement:
This agreement is transferable to subsequent owners of the
project property by requesting an amendment from the Department.
Contractor's responsibility:
A copy of the 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement must be
provided to the Contractor and all subcontractors who work within
the stream zone and must be in their possession at the work site.
Remove materials:
Building materials and/or construction equipment shall not be
stockpiled or stored where they could be washed into the water or
where they will cover aquatic or riparian vegetation.
Inspection of work site:
Department personnel or its agents may inspect the work site
at any time.
Hazardous materials control:
Debris, soil, silt, bark, slash, sawdust, rubbish, creosote
treated wood, raw cement/concrete or washings thereof, asphalt,
paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products,
or any other substances which could be hazardous to aquatic life,
resulting from project -related activities, shall be prevented
MAR-12-2001 11:25 FISH & GAME P.04iO4
Ms. Margaret Monroe
March 12, 2001
Page Three
from contaminating the soil and/or entering the waters of the
state. Any of these.materials, placed within or where they may
enter a stream or lake by the Operator, or any party working under
contract, or with the permission of the Operator, shall be removed
immediately.
Litter control:
During construction, the contractor shall not dump any litter
or construction debris within the riparian/stream zone. All such
debris and waste shall be picked up daily and properly disposed of
at an appropriate site.
We agree with the study by Thomas Reid Associates that the
small amount of degraded stream habitat, which will be eliminated
by the culvert, is not likely to impact any sensitive species,
although the documented sightings of California red -legged frog
and San Francisco garter snake are both within 1.5 miles and not 2
miles as stated in the initial study. We also recommend that
native riparian vegetation be planted and maintained in the
section of the project that will remain unpaved. Furthermore, the
proponent should follow the plan submitted in his Streambed
Alteration Notification and not remove the 20 inch coast live oak
on the southeast corner of the property.
Please send us your final Notice of Determination as soon as
it is available, so that we can proceed with conclusion of the
1603 agreement for Mr. Muffareh. If you have any questions
pertaining to these comments, please do not hesitate to contact
Mr. Serge Glushkoff, Environmental Specialist, at (707)944-5597 or
Salushkoff@dfa.cg,go ; or Mr. Scott Wilson, Habitat Conservation
Supervisor, at (707) 944-5584.
Sincerely,
W.
Robert W. Floerke
Regional Manager
Central Coast Region
TnTni P Pd
JV City of Burlingame Item #
Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit Action Calendar
Address: 2812 Easton Drive Meeting Date: 4/9/01
Request: Creek Enclosure Permit for expansion of an existing box culvert in order to widen an existing
driveway at 2812 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 (C.S. 18.24.010).
Applicant and Engineer: Charles Kavanagh, Kavanagh Engineering APN: 027-282-090
Property Owner: Basil N. Mufarreh
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Refer to attached Negative Declaration No. ND-515-P.
History: On March 12, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the requested negative
declaration and creek enclosure permit (see attached 3/12/01 PC Minutes). The commission, by a 7-0 vote,
continued the hearing on this item with direction to the applicant that the proposed paving area shall be reduced
in area and that a landscape plan shall be provided which shows substantial screening of the paved area. The
applicant has submitted revised sheets 4 through 6 date stamped March 16, 2001, which proposes 570 SF of
new paved area, a 200 SF reduction (original plans proposed 875 SF of paved area; plans reviewed at 3/12/01
meeting, date stamped 3/2/01, proposed 770 SF of paved area). The applicant has also submitted a landscape
plan date stamped March 30, 2001 which shows the proposed landscaping around the paved area.
Summary: The applicant is requesting a creek enclosure permit to expand an existing box culvert to enclose a
portion of Easton Creek for a distance of about 24 feet in order to provide a driveway turnaround area. The
portion of Easton Creek which passes through this neighborhood is substantially culverted. The 30 foot portion
of open creek in this front yard is the only stretch of open creek in the immediate vicinity. All other zoning code
requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following:
1. Negative Declaration - a determination that with the proposed mitigation measures, the project will not
have a significant effect on the environment; and
2. Creek Enclosure Permit.
Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.24.020 requires that no creek shall be enclosed with a pipe or culvert
without a creek enclosure permit. Criteria for reviewing the permit application shall include flow capacity,
methods for keeping the structure clear of debris, economical life and ease of repair, horizontal alignment of the
pipe or culvert, and length of the pipe or culvert.
Staff Comments: The City Engineer has reviewed the plans with regard to the above criteria, and has
determined that the size of the culvert needs to be enlarged to accommodate the drainage and also to serve as
retention equivalent to existing conditions on site. The applicant has submitted revised plans date stamped
March 16, 2001, showing the new culvert adequately sized per the City Engineer's comments. With that
revision, the project complies with the above creek enclosure criteria. Building and Fire staff had no comments
on the project.
Negative Declaration: Staff prepared an initial study for this project (see attached Negative Declaration No.
ND-515-P) The initial study identifies potential impacts in the area of biological resources. Based upon the
mitigation measures identified in the draft initial study, it has been determined that the proposed project can be
covered by a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the initial study did not identify any adverse impacts which
could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation. The purpose of the present review is to hold a public
hearing and evaluate that the conclusion based on the initial study, facts in the Negative Declaration, public
u%egative�Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit 2812 Easton Drive
comments and testimony received at the hearing and the Planning Commission's observations and experience
are consistent with the finding of no significant environmental impact. The mitigation measures in the initial
study will be incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval. Following is a summary of the major
impacts identified in the initial study.
Biological Resources: 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. 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.
The Biological Survey concluded that based upon the existing disturbed condition of the creek in the project
vicinity, the site is unlikely to provide habitat for any sensitive species found in the surrounding region. A
small 6-foot portion of the creek on this property (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.
Study Meeting: At the February 26, 2001, Planning Commission study meeting the commission asked if the
875 SF shown on the plans is only the new paving, and asked the applicant to show the square footage of the
existing paved area and a total; and asked why such a large turnaround area is needed, could the paved area
be reduced and more landscaping added. The applicant has submitted revised plans and a response letter date
stamped March 2, 2001. The existing driveway consists of 895 SF of paved area, and the proposed paved
area has now been reduced to 570 SF, for a total paved area of 1465 SF (26.8 % of the total front yard area of
5460 SF). There is also a 200 SF concrete walk between the driveway and the front door.
The commission asked the applicant to consider using more permeable paving surface such as turf block
rather than asphalt. The applicant states that this has been considered, in areas away from creeks, this type of
paving can reduce the amount of runoff by allowing water to soak into the ground. In this case the paving is
right over the creek enclosure structure and most of the water soaking into the ground would go into the creek
anyway. Therefore, the applicant is still proposing an asphalt surface. The commission also asked the
applicant if he had considered any treatment in the drain to the catch basin such as a "pillow" to filter out
hydrocarbons from the parking area. The applicant notes that filter "pillows" are required for commercial
and industrial parking areas, but not for single family residences. He proposes to have a 16-inch square catch
basin with an 8-inch screened pipe out the bottom to the culvert. The screen will catch most large debris
material and could be removed to allow for regular cleaning. Planning staff would note that the Public Works
Department does not require oil -absorbent pillow filters on single family residential projects. There are no
on -site catch basins proposed, the nearest inlet is the City maintained inlet in Easton Drive.
Findings for a Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and
approve the negative declaration (ND 515-P) finding, on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments
received in writing or at the public hearing, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant (negative) effect on the environment.
2
TJegativej)eclaration and Creek Enclosure Permit
2812 Easton Drive
Findings for a Creek Enclosure Permit (C.S. 18.24.020): In order to grant a creek enclosure permit, the
Planning Commission must find that these criteria are met:
(a) adequate flow capacity;
(b) adequate methods of keeping the structure clear of debris;
(c) reasonable economical life and ease of repair;
(d) proper horizontal alignment of the pipe or culvert; and
(e) identifiable length of pipe or culvert.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be by resolution and include findings made for the mitigated negative declaration and creek enclosure
permit; and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated.
The conditions below which are in italics reflect the mitigation measures taken from the negative declaration. If
approved, these conditions will be recorded with the property and also be placed on the building permit, and
implemented through the construction review process. The resolution with conditions shall be recorded with the
property to insure long-term implementation and maintenance of the required mitigation measures. At the
public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
March 2, 2001, sheets 1 through 3, date stamped March 16, 2001, sheets 4 through 6, and date stamped
March 30, 2001, landscape plan;
2. that the property owner shall keep the portion of the creek located at 2812 Easton Drive clear of debris,
shall provide a 16" catch basin with an 8" screened pipe at the bottom of the culvert to catch debris
material; and shall maintain the channel and protection structures on their property to insure free flow of
the creek and to minimize erosion;
3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 5, 2001, February 20, 2001, and May 31, 2000 memos
shall be met;
4. that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently
approved by the City Council;
5. that all applicable requirements of NPDES for runoff and drainage will be adhered to in the design
and during construction; (Water)
6. that there shall be a curb or wall placed at the edge of the new driveway to direct stormwater
drainage to the street and away from the creek, (Water)
7. that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction;
(Air Quality)
8. that construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, (Air Quality)
3
,?`rJegative,oDeclaration and Creek Enclosure Permit 2812 Easton Drive
9. that the applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit from the State Department of Fish and
Game; (Biological Resources)
10. that 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 used shall be herbaceous and/or small
shrubs so as not to block the view of oncoming traffic; (Biological Resources)
11. that 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; (Noise)
12. that 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, (Cultural Resources) and
13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire
Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Maureen Brooks
Senior Planner
c: Charles Kavanagh, applicant
2
City of B;,rlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
March 12, 2001
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4. 2812 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT TO EXTEND AN EXISTING CONCRETE CULVERT IN ORDER TO
PROVIDE A DRIVEWAY TURN -AROUND (BASIL N. MUFARREH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER)
Reference staff report, 3.12.01, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed
criteria and comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions
of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Charles Kavanagh, 470 Chatham Road, project engineer
and Bill Mufarreh, 2812 Easton Drive, property owner, noted that this is a small project, there are existing
culverts for 200 feet upstream and downstream from the site, traffic access is constricted on and off Easton
Drive, applicant needs a way to turn around on his site and enter forward onto the street; he is continuing
the same kind of channel that now exists on rest of site, will maintain the same amount of channel storage
which will minimize the downstream effects; regarding permeable pavement, pavement will be over the
creek culvert, whether use permeable pavement or not, runoff will end up in creek, for maintenance and
durability, asphalt is better than turf block over the culvert.
Commissioners asked how many cars are now parked in the garage and how many on site; it appears that
this is will be used more as a parking area, not a turnaround; propose 1500 SF of paving, could
accommodate 5 cars, would like to see area reduced, would be in favor. The applicanrt noted that backing
out on to street is difficult, there is one car parked in the garage, it can accommodate two, have three other
cars which now park in driveway so backing is a problem; seems like a lot of area, but need area to turn
around a suburban or Chrysler; regarding planting area, plan to use native plants on creek side of property,
am willing to reduce paving area.
Commissioner continent: there are two skinny planting areas shown to screen large asphalt area, is there
a way to increase landscape screening, can it be planted with heavier material; could there be vegetation
to the back of this area toward the house, have you talked to a landscape architect, should be thought
through, landscape can enhance project and should be incorporated; if look at plans there is an enclosed
culvert with a wall close to the house, why can't turnaround be accommodated using existing space; and
leave stream open as valuable amenity to the house and lot, no need to bridge. C. Luzuriaga closed the
public hearing.
Commission discussion: clearly don't have a problem with providing a turnaround, but it appears applicant
is making a parking lot, if allowed all properties to asphalt whole front yard, it would be a blight; would like
to see if this turn around could be done without culverting the creek or at least reducing the pavement area;
like to see more vegetative screening, would like to see a detailed landscape plan which addresses more
screening.
C. Vistica moved to continue the application, with the applicant returning with a proposal with a reduction
to paved area and providing a landscape plan showing substantial screening of all paved areas from the
street. C. Osterling seconded the motion.
-, ity of Bgrlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
March 12, 2001
Commission asked if there is an issue with parking in the front setback. CP Monroe stated that there is no
limitation on the percentage of front setback area that can be paved one may only park on a driveway
between the face of the garage and the street. Commission directed that the project should be eco-friendly
with less paving, and visual impact should be reduced.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. This item
concluded at 7:50 p.m.
5. 2606 SUMMI DRIVE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVJEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CO TRUCTION PERMIT FORA ST AND SECOND STORY ITION (CHRIS NGAI
AND Y9CANDA YEUNG, APPLICAN AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AR
& ASSOCIATES,
ARC ECT CONTINUED TO CH 26 2001 MEETING
t the applicant's request this i was continued to the March , 2001, meeting to the regu action
calendar.
6. 1219 VANCOUVER VENUE - ZONED R-1 — LICATION FOR DESIG VIEW AND
SPECIAL PERMIT OR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST SECOND STORY ADDIT N (RAMIN AND
NATALIE FOR OD, APPLICANTS AND P ERTY OWNERS; GARY IEBEL, DIEBEL &
COMPANY CHITECT
Referei# staff report, 3.12.01, with att5pffinents. CP Monroe presentedthe report, reviewed criteria and
Pl ng Department comments. Fo conditions were suggested for nsideration. Commission asked 'f
?06,uld
project needs a special permi or the relocation of the attach garage. CP Monroe noted tha this be required, that a speci permit for an attached garage h not been noticed, the public he ng can
be held, but the Commissio cannot act on the project until peer notice of all applications ha een done.
Chairman Luzuriaga ened the public hearing. N
that since the last ssion, they have incorporated a
consultant and ink this project fits in with the pc
orood, 1219 Vancouver Avenu , applicant, noted
vents into plans, have work with design review
VJa
oners noted that they are baffled hen this was here before, expli 't direction was given that the
oo bulky, it needs a detached age, now the house is 400 SF gger, found loophole to get more
othing done with the bulk, alize that project went to a des' review consultant, don't see h
it would fit in with neighborho ; this is a big block buster, signed by declining height env ope
requirements, project needs a Of of help.
The applicant noted that ey did not find a loophole, the are within code, intent is to make e house look
symmetrical, like a s' ple clean style, same shape ndows, doesn't seem grandiose; ave lowered the
garage at an so that it is considered a bas ent, decided to add extra square ootage in to house,
project as now Kedgarage
osed did go back to design view consultant; attached garage s our lifestyle, want it
in front, det in back takes awa yard area. Gary Diebel, project itect, noted that the roof
was also anged on right side to satisfy e concern with the deck.
ma ve, practically a brand new use,
d bulk, by lowering the gar e, have
of roof, project lacks thoug about site,
Co/t&nission discussion: agree th�Ythis house remains bulky and
tached garages predominate/iii neighborhood; agree about mass
lowered the datum, house now reads from bottom of garage to t
4
u+"s'ity of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2001
CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the February 2 ¢2001, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:10 p.
II. ROLL CALL Pre�qtit: Commissioners Bojues (7:Q,5) Deal, Dreiling, Osterling, Vistica and
Absent: Commissioner
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza
III. MINUTES The minutes o ," e February 12, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning
Commission 7ere amended as follows: "3ee1—e�es, Stanley Vistica, Acting
Secretary"..��`
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that the applicant at 1219'Vancouver Avenue has requested
his Ite #3 be continued to the March 12, 2001 agenda. There were no other
chan s to the agenda. J
V. FROM THE FLOOR Tyre were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 2812 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT TO EXTEND AN EXISTING CONCRETE CULVERT IN ORDER TO
PROVIDE A DRIVEWAY TURN -AROUND (BASIL N. MUFARREH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER)
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: is the 875 SF of AC paving
shown on the plans only the new paving, add existing paving area to total number on plans; applicant should
explain why such a large turn -around space is needed, could the paving be reduced and more landscaping
added; this is a drawback from street; should consider more permeable paving surface, turf -block as an
example rather than asphalt; will there be any treatment in the drain to the catch basin such as a "pillow".
There were no further questions and the item was set for action on March 12, 2001, providing all the
information can be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at
7:15 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON TH'CONSENT CALENDAR ARE C
ACTED ONSIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSIONAND/OR A(
MEMBER 01THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE
ADOPT
s
Chairman Luzuriaga asked if/ests.
in the audience or on the C i imis
calendar. There were no req �
DFXt D TO BE ROUTINE. THE YARE
IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A
MISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO
f
wished to call an item off the consent
2
'KAVANAGH ENGINEERING
9920 mufa.16
708 CAROLAN AVENUE • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
01.0316 TEL: (650) 579-1944 • FAX: (650) 579-1960
Maureen Brooks
Burlingame Planning Dept.
501 Primrose Rd.
Burlingame, Ca. 94010
RE: CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT REVISIONS 92
Bill Mufarreh, 2812 Easton Dr.
Dear Maureen:
This project went to the Planning Commission on 3-12-01 for action and was continued to 3/26.
Attached are copies of pages of our plans, Revision #2, dated this day. Revisions and responses
to city comments expressed at the 3/12 meeting are as follows:
4 SITE PLAN. Reduced proposed paved area from 770 SF to 570 SF. This was
accomplished by increasing the distance from the front property line from 8 feet to 12 feet and by
increasing the distance from the east fence from 2' to a distance that varies from 5' to 12', nicely
curved to follow the existing rock wall. Backup turn lines for the city's standard vehicle (large
car) have been added to show that this is the minimum practical area for a turnaround. There is
no way to build a single wall on the house side of the creek and provide a practical turnaround.
5 DETAIL PLAN. This was revised to show the same configuration as Page 4 and
slightly revised grading. A proposed 5' high fence was added around the exposed (open) section
of the creek for safety purposes. The owner's have definite safety concerns since local children
are attracted to the creek as a play area. The fence has a 3' wide gate near the existing east
property line fence for maintenance purposes.
6 SECTIONS. The sections have been revised to show the new configuration and
increased planting areas.
7 LANDSCAPE PLAN. This is being prepared by a landscape contractor and will
be submitted to the city Monday 3/19. It will include only native California plants to match the
existing plants of that type in the western part of the front yard with the intent of softening and
screening the proposed project.
We understand this item will go for action #2 on 3-26-01.
Very truly yours,
KAVANAGH ENGINEERING
Chna/esL�.Kavanaghaw
cc: Bill Mufarreh w 1 copy of plans
RECEIVED
MAR 1 9 2001
CIVIL DESIGN • SURVEYING • UTILITIES
SINCE 1983
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
KAVANAGH ENGINEERING
708 CAROLAN AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA 94010
9920 mufa.15 TEL: (650) 579-1944 FAX: (650) 579-1960
01.0302
Maureen Brooks
Burlingame Planning Dept.
501 Primrose Rd.
Burlingame, Ca. 94010
RE: CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT
Bill Mufarreh, 2812 Easton Dr.
Dear Maureen:
RECEIVED
MAR - 2 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
This project went to the Planning Commission on 2-26-01 for study. Attached are 2 copies of our
Culvert Extension Plans revised this day.
Our responses to comments or questions asked at the study meeting are as follows:
1. PAVING AREAS. The 875 SF previously shown was only the new paving. This area has
been revised to 770 SF. The wall nearest the street was moved northerly about 5 feet, increasing
the planting area near the street. The paving areas are now summarized as follows:
Existing Paving AC Driveway
Conc. Walk
Proposed additional paving
SF
895
200
770
2. PERMEABLE PAVING SURFACE. This has been considered. In some areas away
from creeks, this type of paving can reduce the amount of runoff by allowing water to soak into
the ground. In this case, the paving is essentially right over the creek and most of the water
soaking into the ground would go into the creek anyway. We still propose an asphalt surface.
3. CATCH BASIN FILTER "pillow". We understand these are required for commercial and
industrial parking areas, not for single family residences. We propose to have a 16" square catch
basin with an 8" pipe (screened) out the bottom to the culvert. The screen will catch most debris
and allow regular cleaning.
4. LARGER CULVERT -- STORAGE AREA. In the staff report for the study session, the
city engineer determined that the size of the culvert needs to be enlarged to accommodate the
drainage and also to serve as detention equivalent to existing conditions on site.
CIVIL DESIGN • SURVEYING • UTILITIES /
SINCE 1983
,i i
The culvert has been increased from 4' round to 6' wide by 4' high and a mixing/storage box has
been added at the end. Water storage, from the driveway to the existing culvert under the road, is
now estimated as follows:
Cubic Feet
Existing conditions, 300 SF surface x ave. depth 2.8 = 840
Proposed conditions, 251 SF surface x ave. depth 3.3 = 840
5. WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS. Plan Sheet 6 now has hydraulic calculations for the
existing creek and the proposed culvert. The velocity in the proposed channel is slightly higher
than in the proposed creek. In the center of the end structure for the culvert, plan Sheet 5 now
shows an energy dissipator. It is 12" high with a 2' wide gap for normal low flows. We anticipate
the velocity of the water leaving the culvert will be about the same as it is for the existing creek.
The open channel area approximately 6' long between the proposed culvert and the existing
culvert under the road will receive rock rip -rap and a concrete bottom to prevent erosion.
We understand this item will go for action on 3-12-01.
Very truly yours,
KAVANAGH ENGINEERING
har es L. Kavanagh
cc: Bill Mufarreh w 1 copy of plans
z V Z__
MAR-12-2001 11.24
FISH & GAME ITEM ##4 - 2812 Easton Dr. P.02/04
PC Meeting 3.12.01
I STATE Or«ALIFORNIA . THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT 0
POST OFFICE BOX 47
YOUNiVILLE, CALIFORNIA 04600
(707) 944.5500
RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION Gray Davis. Govemor
WE OF PACKET
March 12, 2001
Ms. Margaret Monroe, City Planner RECEIVE
Planning Department
City of Hillsborough MAR 12 2001
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAME
Fax (650) 696-3790 PLANNING DEPT,
Dear Ms. Monroe:
Easton Creek Enclosure Permit, 2812 Easton Drive
Burlingame, San Mateo County
Department of Fish and Game (Department) personnel have
reviewed the Initial Study for the above property and have the
following comments.
We agree with your assessment that this activity is subject
to the notification and agreement process in the Department of
Fish and Game Code, Section 1603. Department personnel have
visited the site and prepared the conditions which will be
required for a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement after
conclusion of your review. This process will satisfy our
obligations as a Responsible Agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act. We would like to provide you with
these proposed conditions, which are currently being used in a
majority of Streambed Alteration Agreements, for inclusion in the
public review phase of this project.
Construction period extensions:
If the Operator finds more time is needed to complete the
authorized activity, the Operator shall submit a written request
for a time extension to the Department for consideration at least
15 days before the permit expiration date. A time extension of
the work period constitutes an amendment to the original
agreement. 'Amendments to the original agreement are issued at the
discretion of the Department.
MAR-12-2001 11:25 FISH & GAME P.03iO4
iI 13
Ms. Margaret Monroe
March 12, 2001
Page Two
Work according to plans:
The operator shall notify the Department before any
modifications are made in the project plans submitted to the
Department. Project modifications may require an amendment or a
new application.
Cease operations:
If, in the opinion of the Department, conditions arise, or
change, in such a manner as to be considered deleterious to the
stream or wildlife, operations shall cease until corrective
measures are taken.
Transferring agreement:
This agreement is transferable to subsequent owners of the
project property by requesting an amendment from the Department.
Contractor's responsibility:
A copy of the 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement must be
provided to the Contractor and all subcontractors who work within
the stream zone and must be in their possession at the work site.
Remove materials:
Building materials and/or construction equipment shall not be
stockpiled or stored where they could be washed into the water or
where they will cover aquatic or riparian vegetation.
Inspection of work site:
Department personnel or its agents may inspect the work site
at any time.
Hazardous materials control:
Debris, soil, silt, bark, slash, sawdust, rubbish, creosote
treated wood, raw cement/concrete or washings thereof, asphalt,
paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products,
or any other substances which could be hazardous to aquatic life,
resulting from project -related activities, shall be prevented
R
MAR-12-2001 11:25 FISH & GAME P.04iO4
Ms. Margaret Monroe
March 12, 2001
Page Three
from contaminating the soil and/or entering the waters of the
state. Any of these materials, placed within or where they may
enter a stream or lake by the Operator, or any party working under
contract, or with the permission of the Operator, shall be removed
immediately.
Litter control:
During construction, the contractor shall not dump any litter
or construction debris within the riparian/stream zone. All such
debris and waste shall be picked up daily and properly disposed of
at an appropriate site.
We agree with the study by Thomas Reid Associates that the
small amount of degraded stream habitat, which will be eliminated
by the culvert, is not likely to impact any sensitive species,
although the documented sightings of California red -legged frog
and'San Francisco garter snake are both within 1.5 miles and not 2
miles as stated in the initial study. We also recommend that
native riparian vegetation be planted and maintained in the
section of the project that will remain unpaved. Furthermore, the
proponent should follow the plan submitted in his Streambed
Alteration Notification and not remove the 20 inch coast live oak
on the southeast corner of the property.
Please send us your final Notice of Determination as soon as
it is available, so that we can proceed with conclusion of the
1603 agreement for Mr. Muffareh. If you have any questions
pertaining to these comments, please do not hesitate to contact
Mr. Serge Glushkoff, Environmental Specialist, at (707)944-5597 or
S lcl-ushkoff@dfg.ca.agv; or Mr. Scott Wilson, Habitat Conservation
Supervisor, at (707) 944-5584.
Sincerely,
/ &_W,
)e__
Robert W. Floerke
Regional Manager
Central Coast Region
TnTnl P lad
ROUTING FORM
DATE: March 5, 2001
TO: ,City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
_City Arborist
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for creek enclosure permit at 2812 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-282-090.
STAFF REVIEW: Monday, March 5, 2001
Reviewed By:
Date of Comments: 3150/
ROUTING FORM
DATE: February 16, 2001
TO: ✓ City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
_City Arborist
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for creek enclosure permit at 2812 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-282-090.
STAFF REVIEW: Monday, February 20, 2001
1 � pyp 0f� t i7.2.L��XJ2.
•/�J erives
�o L �-�-�i f
7" dA-ft;
CAM V AY OVI^- 0
ca,1v��
• P o�-a- �` 1v
Co'
a 2. u..1 v a �.tii.t. � � P/1,� t d � r•
ot.a � q
f o str vG (/
'f
dk� PP
Reviewed By:
Date of Comments:
ROUTING FORM
DATE: May 26, 2000
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
—FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for a creek enclosure at 2812 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 APN:
027-282-090.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: tbd - requires neg. dec.
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, May 30, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben ���2avv-
DaIe of Comments
47
/7
[mot �-`� � o �H u� vnA �yo
N2 /[ / At d' v t�y� �X r GrU/v-e rim
V" P
/0 7
,/
'3 OL/7 0
J P� 7"' C7
(�
J, LAA�
l
. �n-nAn w► -11� _9
�� I� s ' •�� n-Al "I o'er
v` , vvpw 9
ter) m x °�
vrlA vat IOA
J-h.? 1 Lf--E7 -.-V - I I C/ �� ,
r7yv
�me-99✓D'N M
o J
W
9920 mufa.15
01.0302
KAVANAGH ENGINEERING
708 CAROLAN AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 579-1944 FAX: (650) 579-1960
Maureen Brooks
Burlingame Planning Dept.
501 Primrose Rd.
Burlingame, Ca. 94010
RE: CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT
Bill Mufarreh, 2812 Easton Dr.
Dear Maureen:
RECEIVED
MAR o 2 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
This project went to the Planning Commission on 2-26-01 for study. Attached are 2 copies of our
Culvert Extension Plans revised this day.
Our responses to comments or questions asked at the study meeting are as follows:
1. PAVING AREAS. The 875 SF previously shown was only the new paving. This area has
been revised to 770 SF. The wall nearest the street was moved northerly about 5 feet, increasing
the planting area near the street. The paving areas are now summarized as follows:
Existing Paving AC Driveway
Conc. Walk
Proposed additional paving
SF
895
200
770
2. PERMEABLE PAVING SURFACE. This has been considered. In some areas away
from creeks, this type of paving can reduce the amount of runoff by allowing water to soak into
the ground. In this case, the paving is essentially right over the creek and most of the water
soaking into the ground would go into the creek anyway. We still propose an asphalt surface.
3. CATCH BASIN FILTER "pillow". We understand these are required for commercial and
industrial parking areas, not for single family residences. We propose to have a 16" square catch
basin with an 8" pipe (screened) out the bottom to the culvert. The screen will catch most debris
and allow regular cleaning.
4. LARGER CULVERT -- STORAGE AREA. In the staff report for the study session, the
city engineer determined that the size of the culvert needs to be enlarged to accommodate the
drainage and also to serve as detention equivalent to existing conditions on site.
CIVIL DESIGN • SURVEYING • UTILITIES /
SINCE 1983
3(-PC I TY OF BURL I NGAME Planning Department
ycnME I APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Bur Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
'i
Type of Application:
Special Permit Variance Other C '�,-K JEAfC-L,0-- IuPw PjEkmir
Project Address Zg I Z EA16TOAJ M ,, 8 UKL_I 1CRME
Assessor' s Parcel Number (s ) C5 2'7 O-9O
APPLICANT PROPE
RTY OWNER
OWNER
Name: Q&5 l L_ %V, M UFpgg&E H Name: -.9 ✓- "y'PL%C 660)
Address: Zg 2— ,g `1?2AJ t>R , Address:
City/State AUkL—rdt/6&11I,E.
Zip: 9" iO
City/State
Zip:
Telephone: (Work) I 2.8 r-L 39 Telephone (Work)
(Home) 3 (Home)
Architect/Designer: K,? 1l w,096 u �n
Name: 4L&11e57 kavaW0(?17
Address: 706 "Coio2d7 1'Ty-e j Bud 10 �fd , 9-4010
Telephone (daytime): 6 .�-n
Please indicate with an.asterisk (*) who contact person is for project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE(S):
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury
herein is true an c rrect to the be f
Applicantls-Sig4Aure
I know about the pro osed applicatio an
above applicant tWbmit this appl ' c�tio,
perty Owner's
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date Filed:
Fee 3 1 D
ignature
that the information given
my kn2-3
e e and belief.
0(�
Date
.hereby uthorize the
Date RECEIVED
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Receipt # MAY 2 5 2000
Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete: CITY OF BURLINGAME
pi Ai\,Ninir: nFPT
D t
a e application accepted as complete:
P.C. study meeting (date) P.C. public hearing (date)
P.C. Action
Appeal to Council? Yes No
Council meeting date Council Action
ti A.
B ......... CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMA TION F ORM
(to be completed by applicant when Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report is required)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Address: :ZE� % 2- Q24'F n ��� Assessor's Parcel Number(s): a.27 �- 2-82- �D�
1�q jApplicant Name: �� Property Owner Name: �sf /V, bga-4; rr e �7
y/ 2 8 2. a
Address: •s C2 • �. Address: OL
City/State/Zip: &e-F 1 14ofo City/State/Zip:1 -10
Phone: (o "D " 7 c} ^ 14 4 Phone: t 61S-0 ^ ^ 9 7 7.2
Permit applications required for this project (special permit,_ variance, subdivision map, parceL map,
condominium permit, building permit, etc.): o
Related permits, ap l'cations and appr vals required for his project by City, Regional, State and Federal
Agencies: ��11 �_ ? -� 65-Q-me
Site Information
Site size: 0- 312- Acres and 13 Square Feet Existing Zoning: �"-
Existing use(s) of property:
Total Number of Existing Parking Spaces Number of Compact Parking Spaces ' '—-
Number of Existing Structures and Total Square Footage of Each l
Will any structures by demolished for this project? ❑ Yes N No
Size and use of structures to be demolished
Number and size of existing trees on the site:2 T ' ZO
Are any of the existing trees to be removed?P� Yes ❑ No fY?d y
r'
If Yes, Number, size and type of trees to be removed: �i7 - C a �� �� �T .1ns'%
Are there any natural or man-made water channels which run through or adjacent to the site?
X.,yes ❑ No If so, where?
M
'City of Burlingame minimum standard parking space size is 9' x 20'. The minimum size for compact parking
spaces is 8' x 17'. Refer to City of Burlingame Zoning Ordinance C.S. 25.70 for parking requirements for particular
uses.
2Refer to the City of Burlingame's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (C.S. 11.06) for tree
removal permit and tree planting requirements.
I
Environmentallnjornwtion Form
Describe in general the existing -surrounding land uses to the:
North
South
East
West
PROI
Project Description: e I
Z
Residential Projects:
Number of Dwelling units:
Size of Unit(s): _ 3i
Household size (number of persons per unit) expected:
Cominercial/Industrial Projects:
Type and square footage of ea/use: / ((
,.�P by
r-
Page 2
a`
Estimated number of e loyees per shift:
Will the project invo e the use, disposal or emission of potentially hazardous materials (including petroleum
products)? ❑ es ❑ No
If yes, pie e describe __
Institutional Projects (public facilities, hospitals, schools): 111117�
Major function of facilit
Estimated numb r of employees per shift:
Estimated cuaancv: -
Environmental Lsformation Form Page 3
For all projects: , + �>
Flood Hazard. • Is this site within a special flood hazard area? ElYes No e—
n
Land Use: If the project involves a cond'tional use permit, variance or rezoning application, please explai7
why the application is required?
Building gross square footage: Existing 63 �70 Proposed 3,
Number of floors of construction: Existing % Proposed %
Trafftr/Circulation: Standard and compact off-street parking spaces -provided:
Existing: Standard I Proposed: Standard
Compact Compact
Total Total S
Grading: Amount of dirt/fill material being moved (check one)
N0-500 cubic yards ❑ 5,000-20,000 cubic yards
❑ 500-5,000 cubic yards ❑ Over 20,000 cubic yards (indicate amount)
Note: If fill is being placed over existing bay fill, provide engineering reports which show the effect of the
new fill on the underlying bay mud.
Storm water runoff Indicate area of site to be covered with impervious surfaces (parking lot paving, etc):
Is the area with impervious surfaces less than 200 feet away from a wetland, stream, stream, lagoon or bay?
❑ Yes KNo
Noise: De cribe noise sources and timing of activity generated by your project during
v - Gp -.
Noise sources generated uring operation of facili y: 6a a
Vibration: Will the proposal cause vibration which may affect adjacent properties? Describe any potential
sources of vibration Mo .
Exterior Lighting: Please describe any proposed exterior lighting of the facility:' OlJon E, 4,
3Please fill out and submit the appropriate application form (variance, special permit, etc.).
4Refer to City of Burlingame Exterior Illumination Ordinance (No. 1477) regarding requirements which limit
exterior illumination in both residential and commercial zones.
3
10 4:
Environmenta[Injormation I ornt ` r \ Page
Water: Expected amount of water u age: %V C/ U� C-l7 a rjC� e J
Domestic allday ea k use ( gall/min
Commercial gal/day Peak use gal/min
Z
Expected fire flow de and. gal/min
Server: Expected aily sewer discharge
Source of wa ewater discharge on site (i.e. restrooms, restaurants, laboratory, material processing, etc.)
General:
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Provide attachment to explain nature of all
items checked `yes'.
Yes
No
Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of ❑
X
ground contours.
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads ❑
Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. ❑
Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. ❑
Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. ❑
Change in bay, lagoon, stream, channel or groundwater ualily or quantity, o altcration of existing
drainage patterns. ���17� e� jveIT `}- � f/Pe
❑
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity (during construction and/or ❑
during operation.
Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. ❑
Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable materials or ❑
explosives.
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (�nolice, fire, water, sewage, etc.). ❑
Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (oil, natural gas, etc.). ❑
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ❑
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date Signature
For UJF7 f4 S Aa � ) I A), 0 u-ca % l- e�
ROUTING FORM
DATE: February 16, 2001
TO: City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
_City Arborist
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for creek enclosure permit at 2812 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-282-090.
STAFF REVIEW: Monday, February 20, 2001
PYp/� OJ
P7
n a
Ged
✓ l v.en // d - l i be-
•�.• s 12 c Q ,° pV►.dxx. �` e.. li l f o
jYY h-a T Co"YI LIL 14
Tv S!r vG _ T
f
Reviewed By:
Z
Date of Comments: ����
ROUTING FORM
DATE: May 26, 2000
TO: 1C CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
AFIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for a creek enclosure at 2812 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 APN:
027-282-090.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: tbd - requires neg. dec.
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON:. Tuesday, May 30, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben �j'2o Date of Comments
/7 ds o c *c
�JK G
a C"-1 .¢A -Cal (01
f /
rff C.pc�e h u� �s u� Lr% z
2 G,C.I-Cy���� s w'
_ ,� GL U'
N2�d Cclr 1
/ten � � L �— «. ��,•-�-��
7e
� 2
a �
�✓ / �� � crii a sti- a c 4-a/� v� /�
7 lel-a
e G,L,"A--12-
l f - ,�-�- � mac. < Gcc��
.n�.•NAAA-��
nAl S10 o'v1
�
Xoel nL"Jo
CJ
i
-L
o
KAVANAGH ENGINEERING
708 CAROLAN AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA 94010
9920mufa.l3 TEL: (650) 579-1944 • FAX: (650) 579-1960
01.0216
Maureen Brooks RECEIVED
Burlingame Planning Dept.
501 Primrose Rd. F E B 1 6 2001
Burlingame, Ca. 94010
RE: Creek Enclosure Permit
2812 Easton Dr.
Dear Maureen:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Reference our submittal 00.0525 and your response dated June 8, 2000. Since then we have had
several communications with the Army Corps of Engineers (they approved they project per their
letter of Sept. 22, 2000) and with the California Dept. of Fish and Game. In response to the city's
concerns we submit the following:
1. HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS. We submitted hydraulic calculations in our "Culvert
Extension Drainage Report" dated 5-25-00. This report shows a 100-year flow of 290 cubic feet
per second (cfs) and the proposed 48" culvert having a capacity of 290 cfs. The 42" corrugated
metal pipe (cmp) under Summit Drive upstream has a capacity of only 65 cfs and is expected to
flow with pressure to the first access box. Page 6 of the report shows the creek for 480 feet
upstream of the site and for 200 feet downstream of the site. This is a gravity system and the
water surface and the hydraulic grade line (HGL) essentially follow the slopes of the pipes. At the
end of the proposed pipe, we can install energy dissipators so that there is no change (from what
it is doing now) in water velocity as it enters the downstream culvert. This will preclude any
affects downstream.
2. SECTION OF OPEN CHANNEL. This 5 foot long section just north of Easton Drive is
shown on our plans with the idea of not enclosing any more of the creek than is necessary to meet
the project objectives of providing space for parking and providing protection from the creek for
small children. It also provides access for maintenance of the creek. It the creek was totally
enclosed it would be safer yet, and access could be provided to some extent by an access hatch.
My client could go either way depending on comments from the city and from the Dept. of Fish
and Game.
3. OVERLAND FLOW. If the upstream culvert cannot take the amount of water coming in
the creek above Summit Drive, water will overflow into Summit Drive and down Easton Drive to
about where the culvert is under Easton Drive and then it would go over the side of the road to
the south and across a tennis court and back into the creek. No significant damage is expected.
4. MAINTENANCE. The proposed culvert is on private property and will be maintained by
the property owner. Such a note will be added to the construction plans.
CIVIL DESIGN • SURVEYING • UTILITIES
SINCE 1983 /
t
5. DOWNSTREAM PROJECT. The Dept. of Fish and Game said they were delaying our
project because of a downstream project across the street in Hillsborough. We recently went to
the Hillsborough Building Department and checked the file for 2821 Easton Dr. An addition to
the house is being planned there, but it will not affect the creek.
6. OTHER APPROVALS. We have approval from the Army Corps of Engineers and have
been dealing with the Dept. of Fish and Game for about a year and expect approval from them in
the near future.
We hope this helps to satisfy the city's concerns.
Very truly yours,
KAVANAGH ENGINEERING
Charles L. avanagh
c c : P?v-(,;rre-h
THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES
560 WAVERLEY STREET, SUITE 201 Tel: 650-327-0429
P.O. BOX 880 PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Fax: 650-327-4024
Environmental Impact Analysis • Ecological Studies • Resource Management
RECEIVE_a
November 10, 2000
JAN 1 0 2001 Case Code: BRIO
Basil Mufarreh
2812 Easton Drive CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT,
Burlingame, California 94010
Re: Biological survey of culvert extension project site at 2812 Easton Drive, Burlingame,
California.
Dear. Mr. Mufarreh:
I inspected your property at 2812 Easton Drive in Burlingame, California for biological
resources on November 1, 2000. 1 am familiar with the sensitive species that occur in the San
Mateo County area, having conducted endangered species surveys for the past 5 years for
Thomas Reid Associates.
The property consists of a single family home and yard within a 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 (water depth= 4 inches).
Vegetation along the creek banks in the open section includes one resprouting red
willow stump (Salix laevigata), and Umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis) and willow herb
(Epilobium sp.) growing along the water's edge. Weedy species at the top of the banks
included mustard, wild lettuce (Lactuca sp.) and bristly ox-tongue (Pichris echioides).
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 homes 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, and in some cases flows under
homes through culverts. Many areas of the creek are dominated by non-native species such as
r-;;rqish 4n, tHedera heLiY), and periwinkle fvinca maior). Downstream of the nroiect site the
creek is culverted under most of the city of Burlingame, before entering San Francisco Bay.
The proposed project is to culvert a small, approximately 30-foot section of Easton
Creek in order to expand the existing driveway of the home at 2812 Easton Drive. This will
provide room for vehicles to turn around without having to back out of the driveway. The home
lies on a blind corner of Easton Drive where it is difficult and dangerous to back a vehicle out of
the driveway, especially during rush hour traffic.
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 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 my opinion, the only sensitive species that have a
remote possibility of occurring near the project site are California red -legged frog and
Steelhead.
Letter to Bill Mufarreh—November 10, 2000
Page 2
. -.•-.li"We UIUMIO.... 70
California red -legged frogs are a federally -listed Threatened species. CRLF will
sometimes use creek habitats, however it is unlikely this species would utilize Eastwood Creek
(especially in the vicinity of the project site) based on the extent of culverts on the creek, and
the lack of any CRLF observations within or near the watershed. The closest recorded
observation of California red -legged frog is approximately 2.4 miles away near San Francisco
International Airport (source: CNDDB, May 2000).
Steelhead are a federally -listed Threatened species (Central California ESU).
Steeihead are known 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, Eastwood Creek (especially in the vicinity of the
project site) is unlikely to provide habitat for steelhead.
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 area of the property adjacent to the creek
(east side) will not be culverted as part of the project. This area should be planted with native
riparian plant species to mitgate for the loss of riparian vegetation in the creek. Plants used
should be herbacious and/or small shrubs so as not to block the view of oncoming traffic.
Sincerely,
Patrick Kobemus
Associate
cc: Charles Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh Engineering
Thomas Reid Associates 560 Waverley St. #201, Box 880 Ph: 650-327-0429
Environmental Consultants Palo Alto, CA 94301 Fax 650-327-4024
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 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final.
Date posted: Z 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.
Executed at Burlingame, California on , 2001.
Appealed: ( )) Yes ( ) No
�&& V. lhma4D
ANN MUSSO, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME
r _
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title: Creek Enclosure Permit to culvert a 24' long portion of open creek on property located
at 2812 Easton Drive
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
City of Burlingame, Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Margaret Monroe, City Planner
(650) 558-7250
Project Location: Parcel with an address of 2812 Easton Drive, Burlingame, California
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Basil N. Mufarreh
2812 Easton Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
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 pages.
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.
WADI*m- 8.1
Margaret Monroe, City Planner Date
' ' ' ' c '
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
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
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?
G. 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
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile
1,8
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
I
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 groundbome 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
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
Me
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 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 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 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 m kiss): 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
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
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
9--."
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
2812 EASTON DRIVE
Application for negative declaration and
creek enclosure permit to extend an existing
concrete culvert in order to provide a
driveway turn -around at 2812 Easton Drive,
zoned R-1. (APN: 027-282-090)
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, April 9, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed March 30, 2001
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at the - Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues ,you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city
at or prior to the public hearing.,,.,
Property owners who, receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice °, ,For additional information, please call (650)
558-7250. Thank you.
Margaret Monroe°
City Planner
PUBLIC', NG NOTICE
..
(Please refer to other side)
1
A 1 RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a negative declaration has been proposed and application has been made for a creek
enclosure permit to extend an existing box culvert by 24 feet at 2812 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 Basil N.
Mufarreh, property owner, APN• 027-282-090;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
April 9, 2001 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the
project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and negative declaration, per
Negative Declaration No. ND-515P, is hereby approved.
2. Said creek enclosure permit is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto. Findings for such creek enclosure permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said
meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this. resolution be recorded in the official records
of the County of San Mateo.
CHAIRMAN
I, Ann Keighran , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the 961 day of April , 2001 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval negative declaration and creek enclosure permit
2812 EASTON DRIVE
effective APRIL 16, 2001
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped March 2, 2001, sheets 1 through 3, date stamped March 16, 2001, sheets 4
through 6, and date stamped March 30, 2001, landscape plan;
2. that the property owner shall keep the portion of the creek located at 2812 Easton Drive clear
of debris, shall provide and shall maintain the channel and protection structures on their
property to insure free flow of the creek and to minimize erosion;
that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 5, 2001, February 20, 2001, and May 31,
2000 memos shall be met;
4. that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling
ordinance recently approved by the City Council;
5. that all applicable requirements of NPDES for runoff and drainage will be adhered to in the
design and during construction;
6. that there shall be a curb or wall placed at the edge of the new driveway to direct stormwater
drainage to the street and away from the creek;
7. that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and
construction;
8. that construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District;
9. that the applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit from the State Department of
Fish and Game;
10. that 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 used shall be
herbaceous and/or small shrubs so as not to block the view of oncoming traffic;
11. that 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;
2
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval negative declaration and creek enclosure permit
2812 EASTON DRIVE
page —2-
effective April 16, 2001
12. that 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; and
13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California
Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
3
I
City of Burlingame Item #
Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit Action Calendar
Address: 2812 Easton Drive Meeting Date: 3/12/01
Request: Creek Enclosure Permit for expansion of an existing box culvert in order to widen an existing
driveway at 2812 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 (C.S. 18.24.010).
Applicant and Engineer: Charles Kavanagh, Kavanagh Engineering APN: 027-282-090
Property Owner: Basil N. Mufarreh
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Refer to attached Negative Declaration No. ND-515-P.
Summary: The applicant is requesting a creek enclosure permit to expand an existing box culvert to enclose a
portion of Easton Creek for a distance of 24 feet in order to provide a driveway turnaround area. The portion of
Easton Creek which passes through this neighborhood is substantially culverted. The 30 foot portion of open
creek in this front yard is the only open creek in the immediate vicinity. All other zoning code requirements
have been met. The applicant is requesting the following:
1. Negative Declaration - a determination that with the proposed mitigation measures, the project will not
have a significant effect on the environment; and
2. Creek Enclosure Permit.
Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.24.020 requires that no creek shall be enclosed with a pipe or culvert
without a creek enclosure permit. Criteria for reviewing the permit application shall include flow capacity,
methods for keeping the structure clear of debris, economical life and ease of repair, horizontal alignment of the
pipe or culvert, and length of the pipe or culvert.
Staff Comments: The City Engineer has reviewed the plans with regard to the above criteria, and has
determined that the size of the culvert needs to be enlarged to accommodate the drainage and also to serve as
detention equivalent to existing conditions on site. The applicant has submitted revised plans date stamped
March 2, 2001 showing the new culvert adequately sized per the City Engineer's comments. With that revision,
the project complies with the above creek enclosure criteria. Building and Fire staff had no comments on the
proj ect.
Negative Declaration: Staff prepared an initial study for this project (see attached Negative Declaration No.
ND-515-P) The initial study identifies potential impacts in the area of biological resources. Based upon the
mitigation measures identified in the draft initial study, it has been determined that the proposed project can be
covered by a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the initial study did not identify any adverse impacts which
could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation. The purpose of the present review is to hold a public
hearing and evaluate that the conclusion based on the initial study, facts in the Negative Declaration, public
comments and testimony received at the hearing and the Planning Commission's observations and experience
are consistent with the finding of no significant environmental impact. The mitigation measures in the initial
study will be incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval. Following is a summary of the major
impacts identified in the initial study.
Biological Resources: 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.
Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit
2812 Easton Drive
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. 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.
The Biological Survey concluded that based upon the existing disturbed condition of the creek in the project
vicinity, the site is unlikely to provide habitat for any sensitive species found in the surrounding region. A
small 6-foot portion of the creek on this property (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.
Study Meeting: At the February 26, 2001, Planning Commission study meeting the commission asked if the
875 SF shown on the plans is only the new paving, and asked the applicant to show the square footage of the
existing paved area and a total; and asked why such a large turnaround area is needed, could the paved area
be reduced and more landscaping added. The applicant has submitted revised plans and a response letter date
stamped March 2, 2001. The existing driveway consists of 895 SF of paved area, and the new paved area has
been reduced to 770 SF, for a total paved area of 1665 SF (30% of the total front yard area of 5460 SF).
There is also a 200 SF concrete walk between the driveway and the front door.
The commission asked the applicant to consider using more permeable paving surface such as turf block
rather than asphalt. The applicant states that this has been considered, in areas away from creeks, this type of
paving can reduce the amount of runoff by allowing water to soak into the ground. In this case the paving is
right over the creek and most of the water soaking into the ground would go into the creek anyway.
Therefore, the applicant is still proposing an asphalt surface. The commission also asked the applicant if he
had considered any treatment in the drain to the catch basin such as a "pillow". The applicant notes that filter
"pillows" are required for commercial and industrial parking areas, but not for single family residences. He
proposes to have a 16" square catch basin with an 8" screened pipe out the bottom to the culvert. The screen
will catch most debris material and allow for regular cleaning.
Findings for a Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and
approve the negative declaration (ND 515-P), finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments
received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant (negative) effect on the environment.
Findings for a Creek Enclosure Permit (C.S. 18.24.020): In order to grant a creek enclosure permit, the
Planning Commission must find that these criteria are met:
(a) adequate flow capacity;
(b) adequate methods of keeping the structure clear of debris;
(c) reasonable economical life and ease of repair;
(d) proper horizontal alignment of the pipe or culvert; and
(e) identifiable length of pipe or culvert.
2
Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit
2812 Easton Drive
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be by resolution and include findings made for the negative declaration and creek enclosure permit; and
the reasons for any action should be clearly stated.
The conditions below which are in italics reflect the mitigation measures taken from the negative declaration. If
approved, these conditions will also be placed on the building permit, and the resolution with conditions shall be
recorded with the property to insure implementation of the required mitigation measures. At the public hearing
the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
May 25, 2000, sheets 1 through 6;
2. that the property owner shall keep the portion of the creek located at 2812 Easton Drive clear of debris,
shall provide a 16" catch basin with an 8" screened pipe at the bottom of the culvert to catch debris
material; and shall maintain the channel and protection structures on their property to insure free flow of
the creek and to minimize erosion;
3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 5, 2001, February 20, 2001, and May 31, 2000 memos
shall be met;
4. that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently
approved by the City Council;
S. that all applicable requirements of NPDES for runoff and drainage will be adhered to in the design
and during construction; (Water)
6. that 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, (Water)
7. that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction;
(Air Quality)
8. that construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, (Air Quality)
9. that the applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit from the State Department of Fish and
Game; (Biological Resources)
10. that 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 used shall be herbaceous and/or small
shrubs so as not to block the view of oncoming traffic, (Biological Resources)
11. that 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; (Noise)
3
Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit 2812 Easton Drive
12. that 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; (Cultural Resources) and
13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire
Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Maureen Brooks
Senior Planner
c: Charles Kavanagh, applicant
4
CITY o�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLJN4;AME
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
2812 EASTON DRIVE
Application for negative declaration and
creek enclosure permit to extend an existing
concrete culvert in order to provide a
driveway turn -around at 2812 Easton Drive,
zoned R-1. (APN: 027-282-090)
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, March 12, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed March 2, 2001
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city
at or prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650)
558-7250. Thank you.
Margaret Monroe'
City Planner
PUBLIC'HEARING:.,NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
r,
4
City of Burlingame Item #
Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit Study Calendar
Address: 2812 Easton Drive Meeting Date: 2/26/01
Request: Creek Enclosure Permit for expansion of an existing box culvert in order to widen an existing
driveway at 2812 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 (C.S. 18.24.010).
Applicant and Engineer: Charles Kavanagh, Kavanagh Engineering APN: 027-282-090
Property Owner: Basil N. Mufarreh
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Refer to attached Negative Declaration No. ND-515-P.
Summary: The applicant is requesting a creek enclosure permit to expand an existing box culvert to enclose a
portion of Easton Creek for a distance of 24 feet in order to provide a driveway turnaround area. The portion of
Easton Creek which passes through this neighborhood is substantially culverted. The 30 foot portion of open
creek in this front yard is the only open creek in the immediate vicinity. All other zoning code requirements
have been met. The applicant is requesting the following:
1. Negative Declaration - a determination that with the proposed mitigation measures, the project will not
have a significant effect on the environment; and
2. Creek Enclosure Permit.
Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.24.020 requires that no creek shall be enclosed with a pipe or culvert
without a creek enclosure permit. Criteria for reviewing the permit application shall include flow capacity,
methods for keeping the structure clear of debris, economical life and ease of repair, horizontal alignment of the
pipe or culvert, and length of the pipe or culvert.
Staff Comments: The City Engineer has reviewed the plans with regard to the above criteria, and has
determined that the size of the culvert needs to be enlarged to accommodate the drainage and also to serve as
detention equivalent to existing conditions on site. The applicant will be submitting revised plans showing the
adequate size of the new culvert. With that revision, the project will comply with the above creek enclosure
criteria. Building and Fire staff had no comments on the project.
Negative Declaration: Staff prepared an initial study for this project (see attached Negative Declaration No.
ND-515-P) The initial study identifies potential impacts in the area of biological resources. Based upon the
mitigation measures identified in the draft initial study, it has been determined that the proposed project can be
covered by a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the initial study did not identify any adverse impacts which
could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation. The purpose of the present review is to hold a public
hearing and evaluate that the conclusion based on the initial study, facts in the Negative Declaration, public
comments and testimony received at the hearing and the Planning Commission's observations and experience
are consistent with the finding of no significant environmental impact. The mitigation measures in the initial
study will be incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval. Following is a summary of the major
impacts identified in the initial study.
Biological Resources: 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.
Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit
2812 Easton Drive
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. 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.
The Biological Survey concluded that based upon the existing disturbed condition of the creek in the project
vicinity, the site is unlikely to provide habitat for any sensitive species found in the surrounding region. A
small 6-foot portion of the creek on this property (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.
Summary of Mitigation Measures
1. A creek enclosure permit for the proposed culverting of a 24-foot section of the creek shall be
required before any construction is allowed. (Land Use and Planning)
2. All applicable requirements of NPDES for runoff and drainage will be adhered to in the design and
during construction. (Water)
3. 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. (Water)
4. During grading and construction, the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust.
(Air Quality)
5. Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District. (Air Quality)
6. The applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit from the State Department of Fish and
Game. (Biological Resources)
7. 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 used shall be herbaceous and/or small
shrubs so as not to block the view of oncoming traffic The applicant shall work with the City arborist
and a professional landscaper to select and install suitable plant material and the appropriate irrigation
system to establish and maintain the vegetation; the installation shall be reviewed in one year's time by
the City Arborist and if the plant material is not found to be established, the applicant shall hire
Thomas Reid Associates to advise them on proper replantng and cultivation of the plant materials.
(Biological Resources)
8. 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. (Noise)
K
Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit 2812 Easton Drive
9. 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. (Cultural Resources)
Maureen Brooks
Senior Planner
c: Charles Kavanagh, applicant