HomeMy WebLinkAbout2202 Summit Drive 2 of 3 - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit
Item #2
Action Item
Address: 2202 Summit Drive Meeting Date: 12/9/02
Request: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Pernut to extend an existing culvert at 2202
Summit Drive, zoned R-1.
Applicant and Property Owner: Warren Donald APN: 027-271-340
Engineer: Dave Luzuriaga, P.E., LTI Inc.
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Refer to attached Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-524-P.
Request: The property owner, Warren Donald, is requesting approval of a creek enclosure pernut in order to
extend an existing culvert on his property for a distance of 82 feet. The property owner would like to fill a
portion of the creek adjacent to the house and re-route the e�sting creek through a 30-inch culvert in order to
have some useable yard area. All other zoning code requirements have been met. 'The applicant is requesting
the following:
1
�
Mitigated Negative Declaration - a determination that with the proposed mitigation measures, the
project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
Creek Enclosure Pemut (18.24.010).
Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.24.020 requires that no creek shall be enclosed with a pipe or culvert
without a creek enclosure pemut. Criteria for reviewing the pernut 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.
Summary: The entrance to the site is located at the intersection of Summit, Canyon and Easton Drives. The
main portion of the site is located approximately 600 feet from the entrance on Summit Drive and is accessible
through a private driveway. The site slopes approximately 110 feet from the upper portion of the site to the
existing culvert. Easton Creek, a creek which drains the surrounding hillside area to the San Francisco Bay,
traverses along the western half of the property to an existing 160-foot long, 30-inch culvert. The culvert
extends approximately 50 feet into an adjacent parcel and then becomes an open creek for approximately 250
feet, and flows to an existing 24-inch culvert which runs under Canyon Road (see 8'/:" x 11" drainage map).
An existing 6-inch sanitary sewer line is located parallel to the existing house and runs under the existing
driveway to Summit Drive.
The property owner would like to fill a portion of the creek adjacent to the house and re-route the existing creek
through a 30-inch culvert in order to have some useable yard area. The new extended culvert would tie directly
into the existing 30-inch culvert. The owner notes that the entire properiy is very steep and there are not many
flat areas that can be used as yard space. By culverting the creek and filling over the pipe, the owner would
create a flat area so that his children could safely play outside without falling into the creek. The project
consists of removing the unstable materials in the stream channel, removing the headwall for the existing
culvert, installing a new reinforced concrete pipe for a length of 82 feet and installing a new headwall and
riprap at the entrance of the new culvert. The new fill added over the culvert would be stabilized with riprap,
erosion control materials and landscaping. Two existing bay trees (28-inch and 48-inch circumference) will be
removed as part of the project. The applicant submitted a Landscape Plan (L-1) showing how the fill area
above the culvert will be re-landscaped with new trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit 2202 Summit Drive
The applicant notes that the existing publicly maintained sewer line located beriveen the house and creek had to
be repaired due to slides that occurred in the mid-1990's. The City temporarily installing rip-rap along the
failed slope. Filling in the area adjacent to the house for the new pipe would stabilize the sewer main. The
applicant also notes that with this project, the creek is being upgraded with rock rip-rap transition structures, a
30-inch diameter storm drain pipe and overtlow shuctures which will provide increased protection against
erosion from a large storm event and help alleviate the City's drainage system.
Negative Declaration: Staff prepared an initial study for this project (see attached Negative Declaration No.
ND-524-P). The initial study identifies potenrial impacts in the area of biological resources and hydrology and
water quality. 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 have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval.
Following is a sununary of the major impacts identified in the initial study.
Staff Comments: See attached. Staff would note that an anonymous email was received in opposition of the
proposed creek enclosure and is included in the staff report for review. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for
this project was sent to the Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and to the State
Clearinghouse for state agency review (30-day review period). In the attached letter dated November 20, 2002,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) notes that because of the scope of this project it will most likely
require an Individual Permit from the Corps, rather than qualifying under the Nationwide Permit Program. An
Individual Pernut requires an alternatives analysis and significant in-kind mitigation to be deternuned by the
Corps tUrough the permit process. A condition has been added requiring the applicant to apply and obtain all
necessary permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any work in the creek bed.
Biological Resources: Since the project involves the culverting of an existing creek, it requires a Streambed
Alterafion 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 City's approval will not become effective until Fish and Game approve a Streambed
Alteration Pernut. The applicant will be required to meet all the conditions of that permit along with those
required by the City. If there is a conflict, the applicant will be required to request another review by the
Planning Commission.
The applicant submitted a Biological Survey prepazed by Thomas Reid Associates, dated May 29, 2002, of the
area where the culvert would be extended to enclose the 82 feet of the open creek. The survey notes that the
area of the drainage proposed to be culverted does not provide habitat for any sensitive species and no rare plant
species were observed. Dominant plants found in the drainage include ivy, California blackberty, poison oak,
maidenhair fern, bracken fern and coastal wood fern.
According to the biologists report, the only expected impact will be a wanning and drying of the microclimate
in the immediate vicinity associated with the placing of surface water in a pipe below ground. The survey
points out that the drainage is already altered and does not provide habitat for sensitive species and that the
project would not have a significant biological impact. The biologist notes on a regional scale, the
transformation of multiple natural features is likely to have biological impacts. He concludes that the
contribution of this individual project to any regional change is not measurable and is insignificant.
�
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Creek Enc[osure Permit 2202 Summit Drive
Hydrology and Water Quality: The project engineer notes that the seasonal stream on this property flows
down from the upper portion of the site, runs adjacent to the house, and then to the existing headwall where it is
pushed through an existing 30-inch reinforced concrete pipe and then back into a seasonal stream which flows
into Easton Creek. The drainage system in its current state has the capacity to carry a 100-year storm without
impacting the upstream or downstream watercourse. The upstream and downstream seasonal streams have
approximately 1.5 times the capacity of the 100-year storm.
The proposed project consists of extending a pipe culvert upstream from the existing headwall and
hydraulically mimicking the existing condition. In addition, rock riprap would be placed up to the 100-year
water surface elevarion along the proposed headwall and then 10-feet upstream to prevent scour and to provide
a good transitional area, where the water would converge with the stream's critical water depth and have the
ability to dissipate the hydraulic energy created when they converge. The impact will be negligible downstream
because this project will not add any additional run-off to the drainage system. The proposed project will have
no adverse impact on the existing drainage system.
The Public Works Engineering Dept. reviewed the application for the impact of the enclosure on flow capacity
of the creek, the length of the culvert, and fill stability. The City Engineer has reviewed the hydrologic
calculations for the design and analysis provided by the project engineer and deternuned that the project will
not impact the flow of the creek.
Study Meeting: At the July 22, 2002, Plamiing Commission environmental scoping session the Commission
requested several issues to be included in the environmental and project review (July 22, 2002 P.C. Minutes).
The Commission directed that this item be brought back directly to acrion after the notification period for the
environmental document expired (30-day review period expired November 15, 2002). The following aze those
issues identified by the Commission and the applicant's response:
1. If there is a large
flooding upstream
properties?
storm event and the rain flow exceeds the 30" drainage pipe capacity will there be
(above the culvert) and will this overflow increase the site run-off to neighboring
In summary, the drainage system in its current state has the capacity to carry a 100-year storm without
impacting the upstream or downstream watercourse. The applicant will be installing rock riprap up to
the 100-year water surface elevation along the proposed headwall and then 10-feet upstream to prevent
scour and to provide a good transitional area, where the water would converge with the stream's critical
water depth and have the ability to dissipate the hydraulic energy created when they converge. The
impact will be negligible downstream because this project will not add any additional run-off to the
drainage system. The proposed project will have no adverse impact on the existing drainage system.
The City Engineer has reviewed the hydrologic calculations for the design and analysis provided by the
project engineer and has determined that the project will not impact the flow of the creek. Please refer
to the "Hydrology and Water Quality" section above and in the attached Initial Study which addresses
these issues.
At the July 22, 2002, environmental scoping session, the project engineer noted that the proposed creek
enclosure would not add to the draining and that the project is only a change in the method of
transferring the water. Calculations show that the 30-inch pipe can contain the volume of run-off in the
creek. The velocity would not increase because the transfer of water is under the driveway under a flat
portion of the lot which will slow the flow.
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit
2. Will this project increase surface run-off to adjacent properties?
2202 Summit Drive
• In a written response, dated September 18, 2002, the project engineer notes that the fill being placed
over the culvert will be landscaped with groundcover, shrubs and trees. The Landscape Plan, date
stamped March 6, 2002, notes that proposed trees include one, 24-inch box Japanese Maple tree; five, 5-
gallon Tasmanian tree ferns; and six, 24-inch box Coast Live Oak trees. Proposed shrubs include
California Fescue grass, Douglas Iris, Red Fountain grass, Western Sword fern, Rhododendron, and
Giant Chain fern. Groundcover is also proposed and includes the following: Manzanita GC, Evergreen
Clematis and Dwarf Periwinkle. The project engineer points out that because there will be no increase
in hardscape with the proposed project, increase in runoff is not anticipated.
3. Explain culvert fill process and fill stability: rype and amount of material; how will it be laid; will it be
compacted; and what will be the surface finish over the fll.
• The project engineer notes that appro�cimately 500 cubic yards of earth fill will be placed and compacted
over the pipe to the proposed grades shown on the plans. Fill will be placed in 8-inch lifts and
compacted with a"sheep's foot" type compactor. A concrete headwall will be constructed at the
upstream end of the culvert extension, which is standard engineering practice for a culvert entrance.
The surface fmish over the fill will consist of landscaping as described above.
A geotechnical report, dated February, 2002, was prepared by PGSoils, Inc. for the proposed creek
encloswe. The soils engineer concluded that this site is geotechnically suitable for the construction of
the proposed creek fill provided the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report aze included
in the design and carried out during the construction. In his recommendations, the soils engineer notes
that native soils and rocks (acceptable for use as fill material) and import fill material should be used.
Rip rap shall be underlain by a filter fabric to help reduce the potential for future erosion and loss of the
soil under the rip rap caused by water infiltration. He also recommends that surface grading of the fill
surface shall be constructed so that the ground slopes down to the new intake structure from the
upsixeam side of the surface "ridge" line, and toward the new surface drain inlet, downstream from the
"ridge" line. The ground surface shall be sloped at a minimum gradient of 5% away from the "ridge"
line. Please refer to the "Geologic Summary" section in the attached Initial Study for additional
recommendations by the soils engineer. Recommendations for site prepazation, earthwork, and drainage
were included as conditions of approval for the project.
Findings for a Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and
approve the mitigated negative declaration (ND 524-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.
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.
n
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit
2202 Summit Drive
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative acrion
should be by resolurion and include findings made for the mitigated negative declazation and creek enclosure
pernvt; and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. The conditions below which aze in italics reflect
the mitigation measures taken from the mitigated negative declaration. If approved, these conditions will be
recorded with the properiy and also be placed on the building permit, and implemented through the construction
review process. The resolution with conditions shall be recorded with the properry to insure long-term
implementation and maintenance of the required mitigation measures. At the public hearing the following
conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
July 16, 2002, sheets C-1 through C-3, and date stamped March 6, 2002, sheet L-1 (Landscape Plan);
2. that the property owner shall keep the portion of the creek located at 2202 Smnmit Drive clear of debris
and shall maintain the 30-inch reinforced concrete pipe and protection structures on their properiy to
insure free flow of the creek and to minimize erosion;
3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 20, 2002, August 21, 2002, May 1, 2002, and May
21, 2001 memos, and the City Arborist's August 12, 2002, memo shall be met;
4. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition pernut;
5. that the condition of the existing sanitary sewer line should be investigated and repaired as necessary;
6. that work on the existing creek shall be performed only during the "dry" season (May through October)
to reduce the potential for slope failures during the excavation work and the possible need for
dewatering (in addition to the diversion of the creek.flow);
that a geotechnical engineer should be engaged during the work to observe the excavation cuts and
provide advice on the need for shoring of the existing improvements until all the f Il has been placed;
8. that the fill placement and compaction work shall be performed in a"dry" condition;
9. that removal of rocks, boulders, loose and unconfined soil and rock debris, vegetation, organic soils,
and other debris and rubble from the creek bottom and sides shall be reviewed in the field by the project
geotechnical engineer at the time the work is in progress;
10. that porfions of the existing rip rap shall be removed where it has been undermined;
11. that ground areas that are disturbed during the clearing operation and other void or "hollow" areas
shall be properly backfilled using the native soil and rock, or approved import soil, by compacting the
bac�ll material to a Minimum Relative Compaction of not less than 90% of the Maximum Dry Density
as determined by ASTM Test Procedure DI557;
12. that native soils and rocks (acceptable for use as fill material) and import fill material should be placed
in layers, no thicker than 8 inches, moisture-conditioned, and compacted;
Mitigated Negative Dec(aration and Creek Enclosure Permit 2202 Summit Drive
13. that prior to use on the site, all import fill material sha11 be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for
inspection, testing (as necessary), and final approval for use on the site;
14. that the rip rap shall be underlain by a filter fabric to help reduce the potential for future erosion and
loss of the soil under the rip rap caused by water infiltration;
I5. that the surface of the new fill section should be provided with a means to minimize erosion of the near-
surface soils;
16. that the e,risting surface drain pipes shall be connected into new collector pipes that are routed to the
upstream, intake end of the culvert or the new downstream surface drain inlet;
17. that the house roof downspouts shall be connected into a closed pipe system that discharges directly in
the new culvert pipe;
I8. that the surface grading of the fill surface shall be constructed so that the ground slopes down to the
new intake structure from the upstream side of the surface "ridge" line, and toward the new surface
drain inlet, downstream from the "ridge" line. The ground surface shall be sloped at a minimum
gradient of 5% away from the "ridge" line;
19. that all applicable requirements of NPDES for runoff and drainage will be adhered to in the design and
- during construction;
20. that the applicant shall submit a grading plan and erosion control plan for review and approval by the
City Engineer;
21. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management
Practices (BMP's) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the
plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope;
areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation
to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas
on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging
areas and washout areas;
22. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted
around zrposed construction areas;
23. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw
bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles
to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment
control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established;
24. that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or
attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control
measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, fzlling
clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization;
and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation;
0
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit 2202 Summit Drive
25. that no vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in designed areas
where runoff'is contained and treated;
26. that all clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones trees, and drainage
courses are clearly delineated with field markers or fencing and that adjacent properties and
undisturbed areas are protected from construction impacts with vegetative buffer strips, sediment
barriers or filters, dikes or mulching;
27. that clearing, earth moving activities and the application of pesticides and fertilizers shall be performed
only during dry weather (April IS through October 15);
28. that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction;
29. that construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District;
30. that prior to any work in the creek bed, the applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit from
the State Department of Fish and Game;
31. that prior to any work in the creek bed, the applicant shall obtain a Protected Tree Removal Permit
from the City of Burlingame for any trees 48-inches in circumference or larger;
32. that prior to any work in the creek bed, the applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
33. that unless no construction on days of religious meetings is reguested by the nearby religious center,
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 requested construction shall not occur during times of scheduled
religious meetings; and
34. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are
fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations
of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
a Warren Donald, applicant and properry owner
Dave Luzuriaga, P.E., LTI Inc., project engineer
ri
City of Burlingame Planning Commissron Minutes
.hdy 22.2002
7. 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE — ZONED R-1- SCOPING SESSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A
PROPOSED CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT TO EXTEND AN EXISTING CONCRETE CULVERT
(WARREN DONALD, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAVE LUZURIAGA, P.E. LTI INC.,
ENGINEERI (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner Osterling recused himself from the discussion because ofa business relationship and stepped
down from the dias.
Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Warren and Jennifer ponald, applicants and property owners,
and Dave Luzuriaga, 1840 El Camino Real, project engineer, were available to answer questions. They
noted that in the past the creek had eroded near the sewer line and the City sandbags with concrete as a
result. There is a step drop to the bottom of the creek and they want to make it safe for their children,
existing condition is dangerous. Soils engineer has stated that the proposed creek culvert will help stabilized
the sewer main. Commission asked how much water flows through the drain. Applicant stated that during
the summer the drain is dry, but during heavy rain storms in the winter there is a lot of water flowing
through the drain. Last summer had a sewage back up into the creek. Commission noted that the applicant
consulted with the Department ofFish and Game, asked if the applicant had also contacted the Army Corps
of Engineers. Project engineer stated that they have been working on this project since May 2001 and have
spent a lot of time working out issues with Fish and Game. They are two-thirds of the way there. Property
owners aze interested in adding usable open spaces since this 2.7 acre site has 75 trees and is very steep,
there is little usable space. Two trees are proposed for removal under this application, but they would be
replaced with four new trees.
Valerie Carlos of 2818 Easton Drive, support the project since it will make it safer for the children.
However, she is concemed because she lives down gade from the subject property and during hard rain
storms the surface water from the property drains onto her driveway. Twenty years ago during heary rain
the City had to sandbag her driveway because water was draining down her driveway, through her garage
toward the house. Will the area of run-off increase as a result of this project?
Project engineer responded that the improve^_�en! would not add to the drainage, the project is only a change
in the method of transfer of water. Atea of creek is diminished, calculations show that the 30" pipe can
contain the volume of run-off in the creek. Commission asked where the water goes from the 30" pipe, and
will this channeling increase the velocity. Project engineer stated that the water will go into an open channel
same as now, but 80 feet upsVeam and the velocity will not increase because the transfer of water is under
the driveway in a flat portion of the lot which will slow the flow.
Issues for inclusion in the environmental review and/or project review identified by the Commission were:
• if there is a large storm event and the rain flow exceeds the 30" drainage pipe capacity will there be
flooding upstream (above the culvert) and will this overflow increase the site run-offto neighboring
properties,
• will this project increase surface run-offto adjacent properties; and
• explain culvert fill process and fill stability: type and amount of material; how will it be laid; will it
be compacted; and what will be the surface finish over the fill.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Stafiwas directed to
address the identified issues in the Initial Study and environmental document. Commission agreed that tlus
7
i City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes JuJy' 11.2001
item could be brought back directly to action after the notificarion period for the environmental document
has expired. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m.
C. Osterling took his seat at the dias.
x
- /iJpdate on status of North (w�) End SAP and Bayfrontl�iza SAP
� Monroe discussed the time ' e for the advanced piannin nd current planning projects for coming
year. She noted the meetin ates in September for wor ops for the North End Specific a Plan and
BayfronUAnza Area SAP pdate as well as the vari of subcommittee meetings. S noted that the
Council would be cons' ring the appointments for e BayfronUAnza SAP advisory d in August and
this goup, with e Planning Commission included, would sponsor the orkshops for the
Bayfront/Anza pl ing effort. Chair Kei noted that the Mills-Peninsul ospital project would
probably be su itted for City review withi e next year. It would be appro ate f�r a subcommittee of
the Commis � n to become involved in le ing about that project during th reparaUon ofthe DEIR. Fo
that reaso she wished to appoint an er subcommittee to oversee t work when it happens. e
suggest Cers. Brownrigg, Keele d Auran, who agreed. CP M oe said that she would the
subc ittee know when the p �ect was submitted. The subc ittee to work with s on the
i ementation of the first ye s work program for the Hous' g Element (Cers. Aura rownrigg,
terling) agreed to try to m before the end of August; CP nroe will hy to find a d .
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Keighran adj
the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph Osterling, Secretary
APPROVEDAIlNUTES07.2I
g
��
�T �
LIIZURIAGA TAYLOR, INC.
CivilEngineers • Land Surveyars
Memorandum
DATE: September 18, 2002
JOB NO: 01-9829
TO: Ruben Hurin
Planning Dept.
City of Buriingame
FROM: David Luwriaga, P.E.
Notes:
Ruben,
1540 EI Camino Real
Burlingame, California 94010
Tel 650.652.9590
Faz 650.652.9596
RECEIVED
SEP 1 8 2002
SUB.IECT:
�:
CITY Of BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
2202 Summit Drive
Buriingame, CA
We are in receipt of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of July 22, 2002. During the public hearing, I had
addressed all of questions presented in the minutes. I thought that I had answered the questions to the
satisfaction on the Planning Commission, however I will answer the questions again in this memo to provide
clarity and to aid the Negative Declaration preparation.
We would greatiy appreciate your help in expediting this project, as we have been at this for over a year. During
this time we have been through ihe planning and engineering departments no less than four times.
Question 1 If there is a large storm event and the rain flow exceeds the 30" drainage pipe capacity wiil there be
flooding upstream (above the culvert) and wiil this overflow increase the site runoff to neighboring properties?
Answer 1
The 29-acre fibutary to Easton Creek runs through the subject property located at 2202 Summit Drive,
Burlingame, CA.
The tributary starts at its highest point in the residential development on Burlingview Drive and is collected via
catch basins located in the sVeets and routed to Belvedere Court where it is piped through a 24" culvert into the
seasonal sVeam located on the Donald's property. The seasonal stream meanders down and then adjacent to
the their residence to the existing headwall where it is pushed through an existing 30" RCP and then back into a
seasonal sVeam which flows into Easton Creek.
The dreinage system in its current state has the capacity to carry a 100-yr storm without impacting the upstream
or downstream watercourse. Water flow from a large storm event would build-up at the existing headwall and the
hydraulic head would then push the water through the cutvert and back out into the season sVeam. The
upstream portion of the headwall would experience a very slight backwater condition, which may extend 10', but
this would not impact the upstream due to the depth and steepness of the creek. Both the downsVeam and
upstream seasonal sVeams have approximately 1.5 times the capacity of the 100-yr stortn.
The proposed project would entail extending a pipe culvert upsVeam from the existing headwall and hydraulirally
mimicking the existing condition. In addition rock riprap would be placed up to the 100-yr water surface elevation
along the proposed headwall and then 10' upsVeam to prevent scour and to provide a good transitional area,
where the backwater would converge with streams critical water depth and have the ability dissipate the hydraulic
,
energy created when they converge. Another important aspect is that during this 10' transition ihe creeks flowline
elevation drops approximately 2' which helps lower the hydraulic grade line.
Also, the impact will be negligible downstream because this project will not add any additional run-oTf to fhe
drainage system and we are mimicking the hydraulics of the existlng system.
In summary the proposed project will have no adverse impact on the existing drainage system and will benefit not
only the Donald's, but the City of Burlingame due to existing slide repair that is gradually deteriorating, which will
impact the stabiliry of the sanitary sewer line it is holding up, and the owner is now responsible for maintenance,
which the City was responsible for doing previously.
uestion 2 Will this project increase surface run-off to adjacent properties?
Answer 2 The fill being placed over the culvert is going to be landscaped with grass, shrubs, etc. There will be
no increase in hardscape, therefore no increase in runoff is anticipated.
�uestion 3 Explain culvert fill process and fill stability: type and amount of material; hav wili it be laid; will it be
compacted; and what will be the surtace finish over the fill?
Mswer 3 The pipe extension will be placed in the existing creek alignment. Any minor modifiqtion of the creek
slopes will be made to accommodate the pipe alignment. Earth fill will be placed (approximately 500 cubic yards)
and compacted over ihe pipe to the proposed grades shown on our plans. Earth is placed in 8-inch lifts and
compacted with a"sheep's fooY' type compactor. A concrete headwall will be consVucted at the upsVeam end of
the culvert extension, which is standard engineering practice for a culvert entrance.
• Page 2
�NT OF
,��, ,... . : ,o„
��, �
�, , ��
wi , � , n
o iipi mI
� //
`� �%
.� �
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
333 MARK�T STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105•2197
NQV20�
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: File Number 27411 S
Mr. Warren Donald
2202 Summit Drive
Burlingame, Califomia 94010
Deaz Mr. Donald:
REC���/ED
NOV 2 5 2002
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
A request for comments by Ruben Hurin of the City of Burlingame PlaYu�ing Department
concerning your creek enclosure project was received on October 21, 2002, by their norice dated
October 17, 2002. The project site is located at 2202 Swnmit Drive, in Burlingame, San Mateo
County, Califomia The proposal to culvert and fi11821ineaz feet of Easton Creek will impact
waters of the United States, and thus will require a review by, and a pernut &om, the Corps of
Engineers. A project of tlus magnitude is likely to be considered more than a minimal impact,
and may not qualify under the Nationwide Permit Program. As such, it would likely be elevated
to the level of an Individual Pernut, requiru�g a public meeting, an alternatives analysis, and
significant in-kind mirigation. In addition, you should discuss the culvert design and preventive
construction measures with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Boazd, as
these aze issues that aze regulated by them.
All proposed dischazges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must
be authorized by the Corps ofEngineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
(33 iJ.S.C. 1344). Wate:s of the United States generally include tidal waters, lakes, ponds,
rivers, streams (including intemuttent streams), and wetlands.
Your pmposed work appears to be within our jurisdiction and a permit may be required.
Applicarion for Corps authorization should be made to Uus office using the application form in
the enclosed pamphlet. To avoid delays it is essential that you enter the file number at the top of
this letter into Item No. 1. The application must include plans showing the location, extent and
chazacter of the proposed activity, prepazed in accordance with the requirements contained in tlus
pamphlet. You should note, in planning your work, that upon receipt of a properly completed
application and plans, it may be necessary to advertise the proposed work by issuing a public
notice for a period of 30 days.
If an individual pernut is required, it will be necessary for you to demonstrate to the
Corps that your proposed fill is necessary because there are no practicable alternatives, as
2
outlined in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. A copy is
enclosed to aid you in prepazation of this alternative analysis.
Should you have any questions regarding tlus matter, please call Andrew Muss of our
Regulatory Branch at 415-977-8442. Please address all correspondence to the Regulatory Branch
and refer to the file number at the head of this letter.
Sincerely,
QRiGINAL SICNED
BY
�t1�t4P, SOUTIi SECTION
F�R
Edwazd A. Wylie
Cluef, South Section
Enclosures
Copies Furnished (w/o enclosure)
The City of Burlingame Attn: Ruben Hurin
RWQCB, Oakland, CA
MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
September 20, 2002
To: Pl De nt
From: V cto , ngineering Division
Subject: PI � g eview for 2202 Summit Drive
We have co eted the review of the resubmittal dated September
comment #2 is acceptable.
There aze no further co.
applicant shall provide t
Game and the Bay Area
control plan shall also
Division is also required.
18, 2002 and the response to
mment for this project except that prior to the start of construction,
he City with compliance documents with the Department of Fish and
Regional Water Quality Control Boazd. A grading plan and erosion
be submitted. And an encroachment permit from the Engineering
Cc: Syed Mur[uza, City Engineer
Phil Monaghan, Senior Civil Engineer
U:\V ICTOR�Projects�Private�2202Su mmitl.wpd
MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
August 21, 2002
To: Planning Department
From: Victor Voong, Engineering
Subject: Plauning Review for 22021
We have completed the review of the resubmittal dated July 17, 2002 and the following aze
supplemental comments in addition to the previously made comments dated May 1, 2002.
The project plans sha11 include a note that the property owner(s) shall be responsible for the
maintenance of the new storm drain pipe per City comment #1 dated May 21, 2001.
2. The hydraulic calculations dated May 7, 2001 shall be wet statnped by a licensed
civil engineer. Although the calculations show that pipe size to be adequate, no
calculations or studies were submitted to identify any adverse impacts of the proposed
creek enclosure to the upstream and downstream of the project site. This information is
required as part of the determination whether a creek enclosure permit can be granted.
3. The applicant shall obtain a pernut from the California Department of Fish and Game per
City comment dated May 21, 2001. A permit from the Army Corp of Engineers is also
required.
4. An encroachment permit from the Public Works Deparkment-Engineering Division is
required prior to start of construction for work within any existing public easements. As a
condition of approval, legal description and plot plan are required for dedication of the
proposed new 15' wide storm drain easement as shown on project plans.
5. The proposed grading will require a grading permit for which a grading plan shall be
subuutted prior to the issuance of the Building permit.
Cc: Syed Murtuza, City Engineer
Phil Monaghan, Senior Civil Engineer
Fred Culluxn, Chief Building Inspector
Tom McGovem, Deputy Building Inspector
U:\VICTOR�Projects�Private�2202Summit.wpd
x '• I •'
�
_. . _ . _ _
iTF w�
DATE: Apri15, 2002
TO: ✓ City Engineer 47 re �n'o � 5
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
_Recycling Specialist
_Ciry Arborist
_Ciry Attorney
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Planning Staff
cow�.»e.�i- a,�c.Gca,l
Request for negative declaration and creek enclosure permit to enclose an existing creek at
2202 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-271-340.
STAFF REVIEW: n/a
(� ��o,,c, c��*ui3 aJ 5/ ulo I�� .�Y' •
C� kC`�r�u c c��-�-�ts �� uo -�t.- �I w vnh
►�5�- � �rp� +�.� is e��ro, ��u��lS
� .e�r+�rxa � �T 300 � �pS�'u� �
y�,"'' g"'�^'1 �F -►r� �ec� . �s� aser+�so �tv�,,a� S�w )
� i� 5`}�.�' �,M� -i� c,e�,�- �T'� scaR.� �,1v ��P'C
�,f,�p,�^'� �j�p De�1 s�t�►� '
� �_ . ��. ,
� !r/1 1 � . i . �r (�.
��c� ��).
� � u�- �-e�� � -r� �,�,�� ��.►�'
�,-w � �1,n�1 w �.u- A� ��c�o � ~� ►�'u�arw�7
°� �t'� J�� t�,�,.��.
Reviewed By: V� V• Date of Comments: �� �(�Y
ROUTING FORM
DATE: May 10, 2001
TO: v City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
_Recycling Specialist
_City Arborist
_Ciry Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for negative declaration and creek enclosure permit to enclose an existing creek
at 2202 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-271-340.
STAFF REVIEW: Monday, May 14, 2001
�1 A%Eu 5.�. G.ii/c` Siip�Cp �� Mre..,.-ni-i2-O 7„J�y 0(i'�=K
/
2) /�E.,. L�.r� �Ja�s .r�; �'y�A��v, 70 /�f c.�i%�� ,
i
l� T/i� C?�' /o� /%2Ai.�i��t- t�9f��� ,-,� , C�b ",
/�c�o.� r Ta� £K, OPc-,/ CN�t.�NE� .
�) Sk��. •�o� i L D f �O Y�At �Co �. (�YFJ�c F�
t��« Ov�2 - To/� N�no�nc� .
�) 7he owr�.+�+�. sl�a.11 � sc.acp�++-�,LL- �r a„'�/
/ �
d�e rus�/�i+�q ��-.r� ��- t�u lc cn.�ler .
S' ) � l/ i l` G�t/Y� � j G�a�-� OI7 �a / N'� d� I-Q.(J� �e p �• D�
/ (/
� ►7�i Q' (rcLyna- �t/� rri r � ,
Reviewed By: P�j� Date of Comments: s- ��—
ROUTING FORM
DATE: July 17, 2002
TO: _City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
Recycling Specialist
✓City Arborist
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for creek enclosure pernut to extend an existing culvert at 2202 Summit Dtive,
zoned R-1, APN: 027-271-340.
STAFF REVIEW:
��(�;y T{�LE+�eS mi �%LGi'�L�ED SiL��I Yt� �rGi.2 02 GBGLLEfG�I
/ `
SG 9�"�'-ED Fo � �Ewo viJ L� M u S T" � E �OOcr �E p Fo�'F �(
�p ��,tar�cvE� 7-/t��E /Z�'`�av�C �OOOc.r'c9tz,ai, .
Reviewed By: �� � 9"�— Date of Comments: ��� ��
-p c. Z-i-e.w� �k-1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Friday, July 19, 2002 932 AM
rhurin@burlingame.org
2202 Summit
COMMUiVICATION RECEl.YEt�
AFTER PREPARAt"ION
OF STAFF R£�POP!T
some general commente on the 2202 au�mnit creek enclosure.
I would oppose this because of several iasuea.
There could be a reduction in percolation, problems with drainage, and
in general bad for esthetics, flora and fauna.
It seems that building in and around a creek is fundamentally a bad
idea.
would appreciate that this coimnent be kept anonymous.
Thanks
RECEfVED
JUL 1 9 2002
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
1
� � r -...,� ` dq77• �P ' ' �,(` '� b�• . . 1�.. � ?�G � \\ / —_..�.�pl �� � ""_—y `!y 'i. �U
.� 1
��� / 4 oa .,a� � 4g/.4� �` 'Yn.N ��\ // �// w � � �
� � ' o°� .s.� �{.� ., �$. � � �� �' `:''n 33 \\\ � . /// I a � :�b -
. � \ � �n •�G.. �CjJ� 9 9l' � ^� r8, �3 �,ro� � // 7927E5' •-
' \'�, • � �> 6 "•iji �Q c� I j+� "� Yn � 'P��= / � ` �� � // yt'�'/ ��`�— - „` ' A ".-
�� / c' eo ti4�y, 94/O•\ I (� \ /// -� 4
�S / c� � 'I JJ �ti` µ � o `\�i � �� ,��v v � � \
po•ts� �y.. �v s �` � o• �i, ��1 i/ �j+� }ES99' E'a
�~ ���. ` �� .` 1 � I J O�'�� `� �.�/� Q
� N eq �P� '� '.J �% � �S� «;�4�-',� ' `1, � c�y��'�..._'�?Lar• Y \ ,
��� m ` �o,. R'oo• a I \� ` H..� � p- A'�1' I�I --=�'f9Y.�s�.: �s � ,2+�k
x' � �w /? ,� �S � �c�',UB A N tjI� � � a� N �'\
r�``^\` \ ��, � �� , aN. I /�.r`" � il o . 'to�� r�'�t(9 u,� `=
�`��\�...,.._ �"� iyP�,i, �. � � � y°m. Il�n� ' I�I —_ 795.67_.._.._'_.. �
?1 \�, .r '� 6 � p / � � �
T ��:�� -- •� RJ Y .SZ'Gbf 'e'�,$P�_�T / S� � � 7�,}Bj�' I�� �T�, , � q.
� �` ioa� „y'�"'/ �' �', Bc•9�l...-.'sry% 11� �}; � w!" w.'G
\a. � � �j �'\\ a � �� �i'� ti �' �. » � N1�1 $,'} `vo0_�g, .
w '� � 'P �> >y �.� �u �I'' '_— ,.,__...__� , i
n�'i V 4'$ � N � °''�' V .� .. 1e�vJ.
��„ �� �- � � �i � d� �s ` _ __ __ � P�� �
� 'u, r �, �.1, �. �` \\ g, 11� s+e_o;-- � — — — — � '0�
> � _ _ r %�C ,—sz'�i ' v..n' .
•. �,. I`'.� , \\ '�� w —_-- ..�• '
/ � 1 � t2o.na• ,���,sa, i1�1 "i3u-is� � �
p z.a�-
\ � \ e / � n}NP � s+��.'s nb• 19'��",.- 1�� o N 19.'.�M'�' i
�/ j. I ��W : J.i� \'1 11j , �L a y S
� � p,. "+ $ � M cfl . \ a 11� 4.�,� <y,',a �„�
�� .� 5,�i�� . �� �'� /q� � No Q'` �„i � rn �Yt+ �; tEA57� ��i
v. 1 1> _ " ""_._ ,:
: �` \ � � � � / b�%' ?0 3.q � ,rs 'S �wn �t o .___. _ _...V... y '- ,
�Y� � %� � ���\•� ,8 �' ll ' �j1 ,� � � �� ��
, e*.�, `� I �
't�r e \ �\, � II �a 11) ._ra�.00' �
. '�* �e�� � y� � 2 � ��`� C� --_ 176.28' I _"_. :e � 751.6&' _
� IS.90'
�'L�" m, \�\\� I \,��'" j �£y+ � � � <i �
�'' \ ., � `.\_9y.i.� � `y d/f�.Wti :S cn � �3
q J4� ��� ��� ' ' S� \ 1 ' � � � G p � N ¢) . . �. .�����
� � oB .•' ���� I � y � N �; � �' t!7.57'
�t i'' ��,`�� ^�,� ` y� .iI � �n,'d •y�y �� � w�+,'
i� � � $ �.� \ \ \ i , ti cn �' �t
'� �� �1�ay�� ��8 . � � \�� � , 50' +� �--.��
�, ��Ce� '�as'� �. ������ 1\\y ,�°z `�1�� � m �J�3i• $ n� �s
ap o
\ \� O� � ro
�� o lV `�� /� ^ `\\\ 1�,� 1L .P� �y� `' �""15>5), '�'' o' u"',
s a�,. ,as•u � �� ny� ��, �\ '7'i ���\`\\ a '� �� .-_ _� �.._ __ _ — -- —�ti `s n� � wN .N � � Sb
6F� +; • t .� .. � '°a•, ' .
, • � ,. �o
.r � �•,� —.-_.._,_iZ�,s , y
�� �?0,•+5 ���`p� R •7�, 3 �'L9 � 5 \ \ �.� . 'C�'._.'_-..._..-..6:v` z� � gN� �.�T� +
V r �t�4
. .r ISS w c� n
4 'C Cl� 139.IJ' p'� �o y .. ` � \ �\\�� �°� ro o,C b I: \ � �' �, � /y � �� .�'�..
�8 ,sc'rr� %' � & z I � ' ^.�., :h $�
�• �&6g. . � '�'� '� /� j �,l `� � . l y '���e � �, `n � �.
I s �sa.R� 67.Ou N /�ii��~ �/ y� � 1``� 'iu''`�� ��,,�� ;� ,y `�.AS.,,e� 4 6`� �r ^`,�`` o'
�`- ^ � t �;: !. "`�ti: w � �
_.. _, ,:.� y,` 70 y / 6c. � p�. 'i�, "' �-4,t,_ � ��J�,�. a,� . H;y �"-
8+ ,���, � y�t // I \i'` u ni y� �� r�� ga, C pa �"° o, i ..
_ j� _' _. ' "' -�.'n?. ....... � _ / �11 � w� 4� � �
.. h,L„ �� n�zos� '�xs.n+�� -- — � �` ' 4 ' � 1 1 � w & �i T�9L`-�
� 1 � 8 �N 'Z
�%'---�� � , .R,p2o rN 9�'d \ 221 7H,�{2 � ---••_•.���, `�'
�'��s- � I ''` �QI 'ras,���� fz�2• � o ��
I � N C� � ' �� t�
I a 209.B3 °J .
,s�� \\ I ,.� 111 . \,2�� .. . r� l4 � ___"��
CITY OF BURLMGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 556-7250 F(650) 6963790
A�� cirr o..
BURLINGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
; . �.
w.
Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit_ Variance
Special Permit Other�Parcel Number:
Projectaddress: 2202 summ;-h Dr'i�fB
APPLICANT
Name: uVnrre.r� DonalGl
Address: 2 2 n 2 s c. m m i+ Dr i VG
Ciry/State/Zip: f3u f 1%m 2� L�i 9�ho / D
Phone (w):
PROPERTY OWNER
Name:"Same a5 aonl��c.�n-4"
,-,
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
(h):� r�o,) 579 -4999
(�: (6�10� 519 — �082
ARCAITECT/DESIGNER
Name: Oq vt Lu� u�T l
Address: i8�o r� Gamino Qeal
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this projec�
City/State/Zip:Bu�IT� Ga 9�10/O
Phone (w): lbho� 6 h2 — 9 5 90
(h):
r •
RECEIVED
MAY - 9 ?001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
PROJECTDESCRIPTION:G�eek enclosure to `�rovifl2 So�e are4
c.y,��ta�en �ron; �ulliny �nto c,reeK. ' �
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the informadon
given herein is true and correct to t e best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature: `^' Date: s� O
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Pla�ming Commission.
Property owner's signahue: �� Date: S 8 D
PCAPP.FRM
�T �
LLIZIIRIAGA TAYLOR, INC.
Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors
March 1, 2002
Ruben Hurin
Planner
City of Burlingame
Planning Department
Re: Creek Enclosure Permit 2202 Summit Drive
Dear Mr. Hurin,
1840 EI Camino Real
Burlingame, CA 94070
Tel 650.652.9590
Fax 650.652.9596
RECEIVED
�IAR - 6 2002
CI7Y OF E3URLINGAME
PLktaNiWG DEPT.
The property owner of 2202 Summit Drive is requesting permission to fill a portion of the
creek located adjacent to his house and re-route the seasonal stream through a 30 inch
culvert. The area adjacent to his house is very steep and dangerous for his small
children. What the owner proposes to do by filling the stream would be to create a flat
area so that his children could safely play outside without the fear of falling into the
creek. The entire property is very steep and there is not much flat area that can be
utilized as yard space. In addition, there is a publicly maintained sewer main that runs
parallel to the stream that had to be repaired due slides that occurred during the mid
1990's. City forces temporarily fixed the problem by installing rip-rap along the failed
slope. Eventually this will need to be repaired and could fail in the interim which would
jeopardize the existing house and its occupants.
By filling in the area adjacent to the house this would not only stabilize the sewer main
but also allow the owner to utilize this area for his children to safely play. In addition the
creek is being upgraded with rock rip-rap transition structures, 30 inch diameter storm
drain pipe, and overflow structures. This will provide increased protection against a
large storm event and help alleviate the City's undersized drainage system.
Also, the owner has retained a biologist to address any adverse affects the project may
have on the creek and procure the necessary permits through all the regulatory agencies
that have jurisdiction over the creek.
Should you have any questions please feel free to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Dave Luzuriag , P.E.
President
LTI
05/31/2002 10:34 6506529596
nx� 30 02 11:19a
fi5/30/2b02 D9:4B
L T I
Ralph Osterizn� Gonsult 1650345789Q
650aZ74024
THOMoS REID OSSOC PGGE fli
�RATH�-� RE�50CIATES.
ENVIRONMENf�� CONSUITANTS
SI�O Waveiley Slreet. SuF�ax? 6I501 •0�-40 ° BO Pwww T'RAenv ro coo�++
Tm1:165o132y-0�29 O
May 29, 2002
Cue: BBIO
italph Osmrling
1650 Bomi Plece N204
Sul MNeo� CA 94402
Subjeot: Surwy orDroPoxd evlven urcns�on �Ue at 2202 Swnmir Drive. Bw�inBeme, CA
Da* Mr, Obtaliing.
PAGE 02
p.2
Sh�con Kom�tow and I vieited the Donald prop�n7 ac 2202 su �i Dri�+�m and a�
on Apci125. 2402. We �P�Od � epbemersl dreinagc �ha� rune ��� �hc
��u ro�ten C� 'ihe drtipagc area proposed foc thc eulvett extension [uns from a
point downhiD from �1+e hont Cotn�f ot �he exiating residence, past ttte [es�aencc ■nd �p u��
d,.��e• Saeed on the plene we roceivod from you, the culvut will be extendcd approximately
80 f� 7� ��e en,nrndy 1a cul.+erted stert ing at the upper end of the dnveway.
,�� �u �f ��y{��C ptopoaed to be c onvenod lo a oulvee does not provide habi�a[
for eny �uL'�< <P°G`�• s�'iTD'mdiog 1w�d ��ee hs�e irrgmcn�� � lands in chc vicini�y and
dimioi+hcd lM:1r av�ilahiliry �° ��enuf speelt s auch as the CA re1-l�Bg�d [rog (Rana auroro
�y`o^��' ,�� �� ���y �����Y �iri�, Nr�W ponccctc sacks along the bank and n
���� � �� ��� ped j�ut ebove U�e oxisiing cul��n opening.
pccon!!ng w the proponY oW�• W���[ Ilows through the drainage duriag rsin evente, u
u is wllecred Isarn sueeu �'e tAe propcny. It das not cazry Wuer in �hc summce unless a
m.n-m.ck w��nr wuro� ie prov�ded.�M ��m�ng pools above �he procpenY cAe J�es�ime of
somowharo �Uove �he {�f'oP�RY
out ti�t sarvcy, a smtll ��� of N'em� was flc wing through me drainage.
pominmt plattts ln t!m �n+naBe inctude i�y. callfomia btacicberty. Poison oak,
muidenh�r furn. b,valcen fern. md coe++d woaf fem. Scvuat large bay aas are presene. as woll
as buckeY�• :Vo sme plmt npecias uies obxrve� in th� draina8�-
,�� ��Y �p�e� y�obp�al;mpec� will be a warming end drying of ihe micralimace in
the immediaic viciniry �aocia[ed with thc pldcing of surface water in a pipe below ground. 'Ihe
project Will lirve nu otha �ureble impacLv. 71fe drainsge is alfeadY heav�ly alccrcd end docs
not provi& l�abiUt for oensitive spocia. '[he T�rojat would aot have a sigaifi�ant biological �
imprct. -o �
ConservationPlanning�ndlmplemenGtion � £nvironmenv/fmp+ctAnaJysis
Geoaraphlc Info�mttlon S�strms ❑ Wetland Delineation O Biological Surveys
r
D 0
Z T
2
z�
�
��
� r
mZ
v c�
� D
. �
m
�
�
Z
O
�
N
0
N
�
rn^
l l
<
m
�
05/31/2002 19:34 6506529596
Mry 30 02 i1:z0e
f5/30/28H2 N9:40
L T I
Ralph Osterling Consule 16503457890
650327402a
TNOMnS RFID aS50C P4GE 03
/►i e lar�er scale, a� ere�' a�'d ��rel dtaineges in [he Bay Arca are placed in
����� � taolyng and humidityiqe �ect o[ �hta _ uibuuries is diminished or eliminatcd. In a
���ly-��oi,�g �y�� p¢(nce w,Vr and ��e vees �ha� thriva in �hese drainages act to
wnerol � tamperstwd `^d hm�d��Y. T� ��t i,epend on the water conantn�ed io drmnages
mny noi svrvive ¢he effeed�e moo�'� o! water frotn the P{ound associaced +vid+ cul�erting a
��n�� So� ��� ��p {�ct�pp ep �eeherge o� discharge aquif�rs. The �o6c�atinn
eommunlUos �eexittod with ����ngu ar'd i ne ha6'��t�a� ��c� n��o�ation a etation
�o�����w p.vvld. mry dw bs diminiehcd. On s rcgi
muldple natueel toa��*'" ��9 tO hsve biotoeiad 'unpacts• 7he contribu�ion o[ �his ind;��dual
pmjat to eny mBloaal c6art� 1� °m +�urablc �u+d is msignif�c�nt•
p�ay� ax��ct me or S6non IComeruw if )'ou have any questions or need furtt�r
���y�e�, wa �uuy b� �� y� tbsp) 327-0a2S�, extensions 86 and 87, respectivdy.
Sincorely,
��'��
Bbe o Polk
Asexiate Biologiat
Con��erv+dor+W+nn�n�-"^d �mpleme��tation Q Environmenta� ��+p�« �^aysis
Googn�phJclnform�rio�Systems O M�etlandDelintation 0 8iologialSurvcys
PAGE 03
p.3
.�f.
w,.
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin�oeg
� irr
dt" �'
�""E ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
�q,,,,m ,,,,,��°' (to be completed by applicant when Negative Declazation or Environmental Impact
Report is required)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Address: 2202 Summi t
ApplicantName: Warren Donald
Address: 2202 Summi t Dri ve
City/State/Zip: ur ingame,
Phone: 650-579-4999
Assessor's Parcel Number: 027-271-340
Property Owner Name: Warren Donal d
Address: 2202 Summi t Dri ve
City/State/Zip: Burlingame. CA 94010
Phone: 650-579-4999
Permit applications required for this project (special permit, variance, subdivision map, pazcel map,
condominium permit, building permit, etc.): aradi ng
Related permits, applications and approvals required for this project by City, Regional, State and Federal
Agencies: 1603 SAA with Ca Dept of Fish and Game (attached)
SITG INFORMATION
Site size: Acres and Squaze Feet
Existinguse(s)ofproperiy: Residential
Existing Zoning: R�
Total Number of Existing Parking Spaces�: Number of Compact Spaces':
Number of Existing Structures and Total Squaze Footage of Each:
N/A
Will any structures be demolished for this project? Yes x No
Size and use of structures to be demolished: N/A
Number and size of existing trees on sitez:
Will any of the existing tress be removed? �_Yes No
If Yes, list number, size and type of trees to be removed: 1-mul tv tt
serious basal trunk rot. Four live oaks or bay will be
Are there any natural or man-made water channels which run through or adjacent to the site?
x Yes No If Yes, where? Beneath pr000sed fi 11
see plan and attached project description
� City of Burlingame minimutn standard parking space size is 9'x20'. The minimum size for compact pazking spaces is 8'x17'.
Refer [o City of Burlingame Zoning Ordinance C.S. 25.70 for parking requirements for particular uses.
� Refer to the Ciry of Burlingame's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (C.S. 19 A� tbf hee'r�mbv k�ermit
and hee planting requirements.
APR O 1 2002
ENVREV.FRM
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin e.org
Build"eng b oss s;uare footage: Existing: N/A Proposed:
NumUer af floors of cunstruction: Existing: Proposed:
Traffic/Circulation: Standard and compact off-street parking spaces provided:
Existing: Standazd
Compact
Total
Proposed: Standazd
Compact
Total
Gradine: Amount of dirtlfi�l material being moved (check one):
X 0-500 cubic yazds 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 azea of site to be covered with impervious surfaces (pazking lot paving,
etc.): N/A
Is the azea with impervious surfaces less than 200 feet away from a wetland, stream, lagoon or bay?
Yes X No
Noise: Describe noise sources and timing of activity generated by your project during construction: _
Backhoe, tractor and dump trucks will operate between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm
for 5 days (est.)
Noise sources generated during operation of facility:
Vibration: Will the proposal cause vibration that may affect adjacent properties? Describe any potential
sources of vibration: No
Exterior Lighting: Please describe any proposed exterior lighting of the facility4:
Water: Expected amount of water usage:
Domestic N/A ¢aUday Peak use Qal/min
Commercial �aUday Peak use QaUmin
Expected fire flow demand gal/min
A
Sewer: Expected daily sewer dischazge N/A
Suurce of wastewater discharge on site (i.e. restrooms, restaurants, laboratory, matzrial processing, etcJ
° Refer ro City of Burlingame Extcrior (Ilumination Ordinance (No. 1477) mgarding requirements which limit exterior
illumination in both residential and commercial wnes.
a.►r'�'i:7 T��,s�
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin�ame.or�
Describe in general the existing surrounding land uses to the:
�,T�;�h Open space
South
East
West
PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Description: Extend an existing culvert and place fill over pipe extension to
n area.
Residential Projects:
Number of Dwelling Units: -0-
Size of Unit(s):
Household size (number of persons per unit) expected:
CommerciaUlndustrial Projects:
Type and square footage of each use: -0-
Estimated number of employees per shift:
Will the project involve the use, disposal or emission of potentially hazardous materials (including
petroleum products)? Yes No
If Yes, please describe:
Institeetional Projects (public facilities, hospitals, schools):
Major function of
Estimated number of employees per
Estimated Occupancy:
For all Projects:
Flood Hazard: Is this site within a special flood hazard azea? Yes � No
Land Use: If the project involves a conditional use permit, variance or rezoaing application, please
explain why the applications aze required3: No change
3 Please fill out and submit the appropriate application form 9variance special permit, etc.)
ENVREV.FRM
�iry o[ Burlingame Planning Departrnent 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.o�
Gcncral:
:�•e tlie following itetns applica6le to ffie project or its effects? Provide attaclmient 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 ground contours. X
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands X
or roads.
Change in pattem, scale or chazacter of general area of project.
Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
Change in dust, ash, smoke fumes or odors in vicinity.
�
X
�
Change in bay, lagoon, stream, channel or groundwater quality or quantity, or
alteration of existing drainage pattems. x
Substantial changc in cxisting noisc or vibration lcvcls in thc vicinity (during X
construction and/or during operation). _
Site on filled land or on slope of 10 % or more.
X
Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammable materials or explosives. X
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire water, sewage) X
Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (oil, natural gas, etc.).
Relationship to a lazger 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
X
X
ENVREV.FRM
CITY OF BURLINGAME
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
File No. ND-524P
The City of Burlingame by Marearet Monroe on October 11. 2002 , completed a review of the
proposed project and determined that:
(X� It will not have a significant effect on the environment
(X� No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Proiect Desc_ _^_ �`ion: The applicant, Warren Donald, is requesting approval ofa creek enclosure pernut in
order to extend an existing culvert for a distance of 82 feet. The applicant is proposing to fill a portion of
the creek adjacent to the house and re-route the existing creek through a 30-inch culvert in order to have
some useable yard area. The new extended culvert would tie directly into the existing 30-inch culvert
downstream. By culverting the creek and filling over the pipe, the applicant would create a flat area so
that his children could safely play outside without falling into the creek. The project consists ofremoving
the unstable materials in the stream channel, removing the headwall for the existing culvert, installing a
new reinforced concrete pipe for a length of 82 feet and installing a new headwall and riprap at ttte
entrance of the new culvert. The new fill added over the culvert would be stabilized with riprap, erosion
control materials and landscaping.
Reasons for Conclusion: The project consists of extending an existing pipe culvert upstream 82 feet from
the existing headwall. 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.
C{,'�1.� �'L���S L
Signa e oi Processing Official � Title Date igned
The determination becomes final after acrion at a public hearing held before the Planning Commission,
unless the commission's action is appealed to the City Council.
Date posted: October 16, 2002
Declararion of PostinQ
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 Mitigated Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the
Council Chambers.
Executed at Burlingame, California on l(G�W1- �0 �� �� , 2002.
Appealed: ( ) Yes ( ) No
ANN T. MU�SO, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1.
Project Title:
Creek Enclosure Pemut to extend an existing concrete
culvert for a distance of 82 feet at 2202 Summit Drive
�
3.
�
5.
�
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designarion:
Zoning: R-1
City of Burlingame, Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Margaret Monroe, City Planner
(650) 558-7250
Parcel with an address of 2202 Summit Drive,
Burlingame, California
Warren Donald
2202 Summit Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
Low Density Residential
APN: 027-271-340
8. Description of the Project: The property owner is requesting approval of a creek enclosure pernut in
order to extend an existing culvert on his property for a distance of 82 feet. The property owner is
proposing to fill a portion of the creek adjacent to the house and re-route the existing creek through a 30-
inch culvert in order to have some useable yard area. The new extended culvert would rie directly into
the existing 30-inch culvert downstream. By culverting the creek and filling over the pipe, the owner
would create a flat area so that his children could safely play outside without falling into the creek. The
project consists of removing the unstable materials in the stream channel, removing the headwall for the
existing culvert, installing a new reinforced concrete pipe for a length of 82 feet and installing a new
headwall and riprap at the entrance of the new culvert. The new fill added over the culvert would be
stabilized with riprap, erosion control materials and landscaping.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The entrance to the site is located at the intersecrion of Summit,
Canyon and Easton Drives. The main portion of the site is located approximately 600 feet from the
entrance on Summit Drive and is accessible through a private driveway. The site slopes approximately
110 feet from the upper portion of the site to the existing culvert. The site is surrounded by other single
family residential homes and a religious center to the east. Properties located west of the driveway aze
within the boundaries of the County of San Mateo. Easton Creek traverses along the western half of the
property to an existing 160-foot long, 30-inch culvert. The culvert extends approximately 50 feet into an
adjacent parcel to the north and then becomes an open creek for approximately 250 feet, and flows to an
existing 24-inch culvert which runs under Canyon Road.
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 Pernut from the Califomia
Department of Fish and Game. A permit is also required from The Army Corps of Engineers.
ENVIItONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
im act that is a"Potentiall Si ificant Im acY' as indicated b the checklist on the followin a es.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Populafion and Housing Mineral Resowces Cultural Resources
X Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recreation
Materials
X Hydrology & WaterQuality Noise Agricultural Resources
Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Transportation/Traffic Utilities acid Service
Sys[ems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COiILD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLAItATION will be prepazed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envuonmen; 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 [he environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially signifficant impact" or "potenfially 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 eazlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMEN'TAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain ro be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially signiCicant effecu (1) have been analyzed adequately in an eazlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that eazlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATTON, including revisions or mitigation measures that aze imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing fwther is required.
�a���l'�en � ��� 1 t �aZ
Margaret Monroe, City Planner Date
Issues and Supporting Information Resources sources Potentially Potenrially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
� , Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
1. LAND USE AND PLANPTING. Would the project
a) Physically divide an established coaununity? 1,2,4 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (induding, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or 1,2,4 X
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose oFavoiding or mirigating
an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,9,15 X
commiinity 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 in&astruchue)? 1,3,4 X
b) Displace substantial numbers ofexisting housing, necessitating the 3 X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 3 X
construction of replacement housing efsewhere?
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or struchues to potential substantial adverse effects, 6,7,8,I9 X
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a Imown earthquake fault, as delineated on the most 6,7,8,19 X
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist •.,� khe azea or based on other substantial evidence
of a Imown fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaldng? 6,7,8,19 X
iii) Seismio-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 6,7,8,19 X
iv) Landslides? 6,8,19 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1,6,8,19 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil [hat is unstable, or that would 1,6,8,19 X
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 6,8,19 X
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentlally Poteutislly Less Thao No
Siguiflrant Significaot Significant Impad
Lssues Untess impact
MitigaUon
Iucorporated
e) Have soils incapable of adequately suppor[ing the use of septic 1,6 X
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers aze
not available for the disposal of waste water?
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALTTY. Would ihe project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste dischazge 1 X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interFere substanrially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., 1 X
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 permiu have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or azea,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in
a macmer which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- 1,8,10, I
or off-site? 8 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or azea,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, 1,8,10,1 X
or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a 8
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runofFwater which would exceed the capacity � 9,10,1
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide 8 X
substantial additional sources of polluted runofi?
� Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,9 X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a 8,11 X
federal Flood Aazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazazd delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-yeaz 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
5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollurion
control distric[ may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obshuct implementation of the applicabie air 1,12 X
quality plan?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentlally Potentlally LessT6an No
Significant Siguiticant SignJcaut Impact
Issues Udess Impact
MitigaBoo
Inwrporated
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 aznbient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitafive thresholds for ozone
precurso[s)?
d) Expose sensirive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrarions? 1,12 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substan6al nur.i—be� of 1,12 X
people?
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in trafT'ic which is substanrial 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, eitl�er individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standazd established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways? 14 X
c) Result in a change in air uaffic pattems, including either an
increase in haffic 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
� Result in inadequate pazking capacity? 2,8 X
g) Contlict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 1,8 X
altemative hansportarion (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
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, sensirive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the Califomia Deparhnent of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,9,15 X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potendslly Potentially LessThan No
Significsut Siguificant Signiticant Impact
� Issues Unless Impact
Mitigadon
Incorporated
b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any ripazian habitat or other 1,9,15 X
sensitive_ natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the Califomia DepaAment of Fish and
Game or US Fish and W ildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not 1,9,15 X
limited to, marsh, vemal 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 migcatory = s_ or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflictwithanylocalpoliciesorordinancesprotectingbiological 1,2,20 X
resources, such as a hee preservation policy or ordinance?
� Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservarion 1 X
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
S. NIINERAL 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 residenu 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. FIAZARDS li.'`.,J Ha7.auDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a signiticant hazard to the public or the environment fluough
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,8 X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment tluough
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involvingthe 8 X
release of hazardous materials inro the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous ma[erials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile 1,8 X
of an existing or proposed schoolT
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 16,17 X
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the envuonment?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Po[entislly Less Than No
Sigoificant SigniQcant Significant Impact
issua Unless [mpact
Mitigadon
Incorporoted
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 airpoR or � 13 X
public use airpor[, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project azea?
� For a project witlun the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in 1 X
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 1 X
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland £res, including where wildlands are 1 X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermi�ced with
wildlands?
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of pe�ons to or generation of noise levels in excess of X
standazds established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, 1
or applicable standazds of other agencies?
b) Exposure of pecsons to or generation of excessive groundbome X
vibrarion 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? I
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels X
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? I,8
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such X
a plan has not been adop[ed, within two miles of a public aitport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or 13
worldng in the project azea to excessive noise levels?
� For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the X
project expose people residing or working in the project azea to 1
excessive noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substanrial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered govemmental facilities; need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction ofwhich could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to mainbin acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1 X
b) Police protection? I X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Poteudally LessThau No
Signiftcant Signllicant Sigaificant Impact
Issues Uuless Impact
Mitlgatlon
Incorporated
C% $CIl00IS: I X
d) Parks? 1 X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
12. iITILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requiremenu of the applicable 1 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the consWction of new water or wastewater 1 X
i�eatrnent facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construc6on of which could cause significant env.^�nmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of I 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 aze new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treahnent provider I 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?
� Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1 X
accommodate the projecYs solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 1 X
related to solid waste2 '
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X
b) Substanrially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 1 X
to, kees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substanfially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the I X
site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substanrial light or glare which would 1 X
adversely af%ct day or nighttime views in the azea?
14. CULTURAI. RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a I,S X
historical resource as defined in'15064.5?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources so�.�� Potentislly Potentlalty Less T6an No
SiguJnut Significant Signifcan[ Impact
Issues Unless ImpsM
Midgadou
Inrnrporated
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,8 X
azchaeologicalresource pursuantto'15064.5?
c) D'uectly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or 1,8 X
site or unique geological feature?
d) Dishub any human remains, including those inteaed outside of 1,8 X
focmal cemeteries?
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighbofiood and 1,8 X
regional �sYs or other recreafional facili6es such that substanfial
physical deteriorntion of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does fhe project include recreational facilities or require the 1,8 X
consirucrion or expansion of recreatiooal facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
16. AGRICIJLTUI2AL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacu to agriculbual resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepazed by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculhue and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Fazmland or Farmland of X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepazed I
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, oc a Williamson X
Act contract7 1
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their locai:c:. or nahue, could result in conversion of Farmtand, to 1 X
non-agricultural use?
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, tluea[en ro eliminate a plant or animal.
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate impor[ant examples of the
major periods of Califomia history or prelustory? I X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but 1 X
cumuladvely considerable? ("C�mulatively considerable" means
that the incremenial effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in cormection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentlally Potendally Less Than No
Sigoitlnut Signifieant Sigoificaut Impact
Issues Unless Impact
MStigadou
Incorporated
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause I
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? 1
X
to
Initia[ Study Summary 2202 Summit Drive
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 The City ofBur[ingame General Plan, Burlingame, Califomia, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
2 City of Burlingazne, Municipa! Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, Ca(ifomia, 2001 edition.
3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City ojBurlingame, Burlingame, Califomia, 2002.
4 2002 Ceasus
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, Califomia, 1972.
7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthguake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo
County: Califomia, 1987.
8 CulveR Extension and Landscape Plans, date stamped July 16, 2002 (sheets C-1 through C-3 and L-1).
9 Biological Survey prepared by Thomas Reid Associates dated May 29, 2002
10 Engineering Memos dated May 21, 2001 and May I, August 21, and September 20, 2002, regarding hydrologic calculation,
erosion control, grading and maintenance of the culvert.
I 1 Map ojApproximate Locations of 100 year Fl��d Areas, from the Narional 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 Intemational Airport, December, 1994
14 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 1997
15 Map ofAreas ofSpecial Biologicallmportance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish
and Game
16 State ojCa[ifornia Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998
17 San Mateo County Inventory ojFue! Leak Sites, April 1998
18 Luzuriaga Taylor Inc. Memo dated September 18, 2002
19 Geotechnical Report prepared by PGSoils, Inc. dated February I 1, 2002
20 City Arborist Memo dated August 12, 2002, regazding tree removal
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. The site is surrounded by other single family residential
homes a religious center to the east. Properties located west of the driveway are within the boundaries of the
County of San Mateo. 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 approxnnating 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 nahual 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 pernut for the proposed culverting of a 82' section of the creek shall be required
before any construction is allowed.
Population and Housing Summary: This site and the surrounding azea are planned for low density residential
uses. 1 ne project will not result in a change to the number of housing units nor will it affect azea population.
Geologic Summary: The site is located in the fully developed hillside azea of Burlingame, an urban setting
which has been developed with single family homes for about 50 years. The site is approlcimately 1 mile from
the San Andreas Fault but is not withiu 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 lrnown faults on
the site. The construction of the culvert will not affect the seismic exposure of the site. The pipe extension will
be placed in the e�cisting creek alignment. Earth fill will be placed (approacimately 500 cubic yazds) and
compacted over the pipe to the proposed grades shown on the project plans. Earth fill will be placed in 8-inch
lifts and compacted with a"sheep's fooY' type compactor. A concrete headwall will be constructed at the
upstream end of the culvert extension.
The soils engineer notes in a geotechnical investigation (February 2002) that the subsurface materials below the
upper fill and topsoil aze very stiff clayey, weathered bedrock, in addition to hard, fresh rock, and these
conditions may help to reduce the intensity of shaking in a seismic event. Since no fault h�aces aze mapped
throug'� �he site, ground surface rupture is not likely at the site. No loose, saturated sandy soils were
encountered; and therefore, liquefacrion is not considered likely to occur. The site slopes aze steep, and there
have been past failures which appear to have been related to undernuning of the base of the slope by the creek.
Shaking during a strong earthquake could increase the likelihood of future failures. However, the proposed fill
in the creek channel will increase the stability of the adjacent slopes by bumessing the steepest portion of the
slopes along the creek bottom.
The soils engineer concludes that tlus site is geotechnically suitable for the construction of the proposed creek fill
provided the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are included in the design and carried out
during the construction. Recommendations for site preparation, earthwork, and drainage are included below as
mitigation.
Mitigation:
• The condition of the existing sanitary sewer line should be investigated and repaired as necessary.
• Work on the e�sting creek shall be performed only during the "dry" season (May through October) to
reduce the potential for slope failures during the excavation work and the possible need for dewatering
(in addition to the diversion of the creek flow).
Initial Study Summary
2202 Summit Drive
• A geotechnical engineer should be engaged during the work to observe the excavation cuts and provide
advice on the need for shoring of the existing improvements until all the fill has been placed.
• The fill placement and compaction work shall be performed in a"dry" condition.
• Removal of rocks, boulders, loose and unconfined soil and rock debris, vegetation, organic soils, and
other debris and rubble from the creek bottom and sides shall be reviewed in the field by the project
geotechnical engineer at the time the work is in progress.
• Portions of the eacisting rip rap shall be removed where it has been undernrined.
• Ground areas that aze dishubed during the clearing operation and other void or "hollow" areas shall be
properly backfilled using the native soil and rock, or approved import soil, by compacting the backfill
material to a Minimum Relative Compaction of not less than 90% of the Maximum Dry Density as
determined by ASTM Test Procedure D1557.
• Native soils and rocks (acceptable for use as fill material) and import fill material should be placed in
layers, no thicker than 8 inches, moisture-conditioned, and compacted.
• Prior to use on the site, all import fill material shall be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for
inspection, testing (as necessary), and fmal approval for use on the site: --
• That the rip rap shall be underlain by a filter fabric to help reduce the potential for future erosion and
loss of the soil under the rip rap caused by water infiltration.
• The surface of the new fill section should be provided with a means to minunize erosion of the near-
surface soils.
• Existing surface drain pipes shall be connected into new collector pipes that aze routed to the upstream,
intake end of the culvert or the new downstream surface drain inlet.
• The house roof downspouts shall be connected into a closed pipe system that discharges directly in the
new culvert pipe.
• Surface grading of the fill surface shall be constructed so that the ground slopes down to the new intake
structure from the upstream side of the surface "ridge" line, and toward the new surface drain inlet,
downstream from the "ridge" line. The ground surface shall be sloped at a minimum gradient of 5%
away.from the "ridge" line.
Water Summary: The project engineer notes that the seasonal stream on this property flows down from the
upper portion of the site, runs adj acent to the house, and then to the existing headwall where it is pushed through
an existing 30-inch reinforced concrete pipe and then back into a seasonal stream �..•ti:ch flows into Easton Creek.
The drainage system in its current state has the capacity to carry a 100-year storm without impacting the
upstream or downstream watercourse. The upstream and downstream seasonal streams have approximately 1.5
times the capacity of the 100-year storm. A sanitary sewer easement exists along the northwest side of the creek,
between the house and the creek. A 6-inch diameter pipe is located in this easement. It extends in front of the
garage and then follows the driveway down to Easton Drive.
The project consists of extending an existing culvert for a distance of 82 feet. The project involves removing the
unstable materials in the stream channel, removing the headwall for the existing culvert, installing a new
reinforced concrete pipe for a length of 82 feet and installing a new headwall and riprap at the entrance of the
new culvert. The new fill added over the culvert would be stabilized with riprap, erosion control materials and
landscaping.
The proposed project consists of extending a pipe culvert upstream from the existing headwall and hydraulically
mimicking the existing condition. In addition, rock riprap would be placed up to the 100-year water surface
elevation along the proposed headwall and then 10-feet upstream to prevent scour and to provide a good
13
Initial Study Summary
2202 Summit Drive
transitional azea, where the water would converge with the stream's critical water depth and have the ability to
dissipate the hydraulic energy created when they converge. The impact will be negligible downstream because
tlus project will not add any additional run-off to the drainage system. The proposed project will have no
adverse impact on the existing drainage system.
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 oFdebris, 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 analysis provided by the proj ect engineer and has detern�ined 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.
■ The applicant shall submit a grading plan and erosion control plan for review and approval by the City
Engineer.
■ The applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management
Practices (BMP's) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the
plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope;
areas to be disturbed, locations ofcudfill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to
be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-
site or immediately downstream ofa project; and designated construcrion access routes, staging azeas and
washout azeas.
■ Off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted
around exposed construction areas.
■ Methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale
dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soii stock piles to
stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control
continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established.
• The erosion and sedimentation cor..:;,1 plans should include notes, specifications, and/or attachments
describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures,
including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of
vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and
provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation.
■ No vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in designed areas where
runoff is contained and treated.
■ All clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones trees, and drainage
courses are clearly delineated with field markers or fencing and that adj acent properties and undisturbed
azeas are protected from construction impacts with vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters,
dikes or mulching.
■ Clearing, earth moving activities and the application of pesticides and fertilizers shall be performed only
during dry weather (April 15 through October 15).
�a
Initial Study Summary
2202 Summit Drive
If construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through Apri115), that prior to October 15 the
developer shall implement a winterizarion program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted
runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and
immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent
seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto
public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals.
Air Quality Summary: Site preparation and fill will be done during the dry season. No objecrionable odors or
alterarion 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.
Mitigation:
• The site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction.
� ^onstruction 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 additional residenrial
development, and therefore will be no increase in traffic. There will be no adverse impact on area traffic or the
street system.
Biological Resources Summary: Since the project involves the culverting of an existing creek, it requires a
Streambed Alteration Pemut 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
82 feet of the open creek prepared by Thomas Reid Associates. The survey notes that the area of the drainage
proposed to be culverted does not provide habitat for any sensirive species and no rare plant species were
observed. Dominant plants found in the drainage include ivy, California blackberry, poison oak, maidenhair
fern, i,iacken fem and coastal wood fern.
According to the biologisPs report, the only expected impact of the project will be a warming and drying of the
microclimate in the immediate vicinity of the creek associated with the placing of surface water in a pipe below
ground. The survey points out that the drainage is already altered and does not provide habitat for sensitive
species and that the project would not have a significant biological impact.
The biotogist notes on a regional scale, the tra�sformation of mulriple natural features is likely to have biological
impacts. He concludes that the contribution of this individual project to any regional change is not measurable
and is insignificant.
Two existing bay trees (28-inch and 48-inch circumference) will be removed as part of the project. Tlie City
Arborist noted that any trees of protected size (48-inch circumference or larger) can only be removed with
approval of a"protected tree removal" permit issued by the City.
�s
Initial Study Summary
Mitigarion:
2202 Summit Drive
Prior to any work in the creek bed, the applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Pernut from the
State Department of Fish and Game.
Prior to any work in the creek bed, the applicant shall obtain a Protected Tree Removal Pemut from the
City of Burlingame for any trees 48-inches in circumference or larger.
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: After construction tlus project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the
environment and will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may
need to implement.- There are no known health hazards on the site. This project is not expected to expose people
to health hazazds, nor is it expected to create a health hazard.
f .,
Noise Summary: The site is impacted by noise from traffic on adjacent Easton, Suimnit and Canyon Drives and
from aircraft landings and takeoffs at San Francisco Intemarional Airport, wluch is located about 2 1/2 miles
northeast of the site. Construction activities may affect adjacent residences and the religious center, and noise
levels may increase during constnxction. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the
Municipal Code.
Mitigation:
Unless no construction on days of religious meetings is requested by the nearby religious center,
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 requested conshuction shall not occur during times of scheduled religious meetings.
Public Services Summary: Because the project represents no increase in the total population ofthe City and is
located on an already developed site, the eacisting public and governmental services in the area have capacities
which can accommodate the proposed culvert extension. It shall be the resp'v�.�ibility of the private property
owner to maintain the design flow capacity of the creek enclosure.
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.
Aesthetics Summary: The project will result in the culverting ofan e�cisting open creek, with the culverted area
covered with trees shrubs and groundcover. Proposed trees include one, 24-inch box Japanese Maple tree; five,
5-gallon Tasmanian tree ferns; and six, 24-inch box Coast Live Oak trees. Proposed shrubs include Califomia
Fescue grass, Douglas Iris, Red Fountain grass, Western Sword fem, Rhododendron, and Giant Chain fern.
Groundcover is also proposed and includes the following: Manzanita GC, Evergreen Clematis and Dwarf
Periwinkle.
Cultural Resources Summary: The project consists of removing the unstable materials in the stream channel
and removing the headwall for the existing culvert. Any archeological, historic, cultural, or ethnic sites which
�s
Initia[ Study Summary
2202 Summit Drive
may have been in or near these locations were disturbed or destroyed by previous development prior to this
proposal. Should any cultural resources be discovered during conshvction, work will be halted until they are
fully investigated.
Mitigation:
• Should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully
investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the
expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City.
Recreation Summary: The proposed culvert extension does not replace or destroy any existing recreational
facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opporhmities for the City of Burlingame.
The site involved in this project is not presently zoned or used for recreational uses.
Agricultural Resources: There is no far nl:snd or agricultural resources in Burlingame. Therefore, the proposed
culvert extension will not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use or conflict with the zoning.
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES:
A creek enclosure pernut for the proposed culverting of a 82' section of the creek shall be required before
anyconstruction is allowed.
2. The condition of the existing sanitary sewer line should be investigated and repaired as necessary.
3. Work on the existing creek shall be performed only during the "dry" season (May through October) to
reduce the potential for slope failures during the excavation work and the possible need for dewatering (in
addition to the diversion of the creek flow).
4. A geotechnical engineer should be engaged during the work to observe the excavation cuts and provide
advice on the need for shoring of the existing improvements until all the fill has been placed.
The fill placement and compaction work shall be performed in a"dry" condition.
6. Removal ofrocks, boulders, loose and unconfined soil and rock debris, vegetation, organic soils, and other
debris and rubble from the creek bottom and sides shall be reviewed in the field by the project geoteckuucal
engineer at the time the work is in progress.
7. Portions of the eacisting rip rap shall be removed where it has been undernuned.
8. Ground areas that are disturbed during the clearing operation and other void or "hollow" azeas shall be
properly backfilled using the native soil and rock, or approved import soil, by compacting the backfill
material to a Minimum Relative Compaction of not less than 90% of the Maximum Dry Density as
detemuned by ASTM Test Procedure D 1557.
9. Native soils and rocks (acceptable for use as fill material) and import fill material should be placed in
layers, no thicker than 8 inches, moisture-conditioned, and compacted.
»
Initial Study Summary
2202 Summit Drive
10. Prior to use on the site, all import fili material shall be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for
inspection, testing (as necessary), and final approval for use on the site.
11. That the rip rap shall be underlain by a filter fabric to help reduce the potenrial for future erosion and loss
of the soil under the rip rap caused by water infiltration.
12. The surface of the new fill section should be provided with a means to miuimize erosion of the near-surface
soils.
13. Existing surface drain pipes shall be connected into new collector pipes that are routed to the upstream,
intake end of the culvert or the new downstream surface drain inlet.
14. The house roof downspouts shall be connected into a closed pipe system that discharges d'uectly in the new
culvert pipe.
15. Surface grading of the fill surface shall be consiructed so that the ground slopes down to the new intake
structure from the upstream side of the surface "ridge" line, and toward the new surface drain inlet,
downstream from the "ridge" line. The ground surface shall be sloped at a minimum gradient of 5% away
from the "ridge" line.
16. All applicable requirements ofNPDES for runoff and drainage will be adhered to in the design and during
construction.
17. The applicant shall submit a grading plan and erosion control plan for review and approval by the City
Engineer.
18. The applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management
Practices (BMP's) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan
shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to
be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetarion to be
protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive azeas on-site or
immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging azeas and washout
areas.
19. Off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted azound
exposed construction ateas.
20. Methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale
dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protecrion soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to
stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control
continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established.
78
Initial Study Summary
2202 Summit Drive
21: The erosion and sedimentarion control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or attaclunents
describing the conskuction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment conh�ol measures, including
inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetarive cover
and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary
and permanent irrigation.
22. No vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in designed azeas where
runoff is contained and treated.
23. All clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones trees, and drainage courses
are cleazly delineated with field markers or fencing and that adj acent properties and undisturbed areas are
protected from construction impacts with vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes or
mulching.
24. Clearing, earth moving activities and the application of pesticides and-1 ��i �!izers shall be performed only
during dry weather (April 15 through October 15).
25. If construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the
developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted
runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and
immediately after each storm even; stabilizing dishubed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding,
mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion ofmud onto public right-
of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals.
26. The site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction.
27. Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
28. Prior to any work in the creek bed, the applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Pernut from the State
Department of Fish and Game.
29. Prior to any work in the creek bed, the applicant shall obtain a Protected Tree Removal Pernut from the
City of Burlingame for any trees 48-inches in circumference or lazger.
30. Unless no construction on days of religious meetings is requested by the nearby religious center,
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 requested construction shall not occur during times of scheduled religious meetings.
31. Should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully
investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the
expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City.
�s
RESOLUTION APPROVING NIITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a mitigated negaNve declazation has been proposed and application has been made for a
creek enclosure permit to extend an existing culvert at 2202 Summit Drive, zoned R-1. Warren Donald.
pronertv owner. APN: 027-271-340;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
December 9, 2002, 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 DETERNIINED 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 ifi�et there is no substanrial evidence that the
project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and mitigated negative declaration,
per Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-524P, is hereby approved.
2. Said mitigated negative declaration and creek enclosure permit are approved, subject to the
condirions set forth in E�ibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such mitigated negative declararion and
creek enclosure pernut 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.
C '�
I, Ralph Osterlin�, 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 9`�' day of December, 2002 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMI��IISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXffiBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declazation and creek enclosure pemut.
2202 Summit Drive
effective January 6, 2003
page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped July 16, 2002, sheets C-1 through C-3, and date stamped Mazch 6, 2002, sheet L-1
(Landscape Plan);
2. that the property owner shall keep the portion of the creek located at 2202 Summit Drive clear of
debris and shall maintain the 30-inch reinforced concrete pipe 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 September 20, 2002, August 21, 2002, May 1, 2002, and
May 21, 2001 memos, and the City Arborist's August 12, 2002, memo shall be met;
4. that the project sliaii comply with the Construction and Demolirion Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition pernut;
5. that the condition of the existing sanitary sewer line should be investigated and repaired as
necessary;
6. that work on the existing creek shall be performed only during the "dry" season (May through
October) to reduce the potential for slope failures during the excavation work and the possible need
for dewatering (in addition to the diversion of the creek flow);
that a geotechnical engineer should be engaged during the work to observe the excavation cuts and
provide advice on the need for shoring of the existing improvements until all the fill has been
placed;
8. that the fill placement and compaction work shall be performed in a"dry" condirion;
9. that removal of rocks, boulders, loose and unconfined soil and rock debris, vegetation, organic
soils, and other debris and rubble from the creek bottom and sides shall be reviewed in the field by
the project geotechnical engineer at the time the work is in progress;
10. that portions of the existing rip rap shall be removed where it has been undermined;
11. that ground areas that are disturbed during the clearing operation and other void or "hollow" azeas
shall be properly backfilled using the native soil and rock, or approved import soil, by compacting
the backfill material to a Minimum Relative Compaction of not less than 90°/a of the Maximum Dry
Density as detemuned by AST'M Test Procedure D 1557;
12. that narive soils and rocks (acceptable for use as fill material) and import fitl material should be
placed in layers, no thicker than 8 inches, moishue-conditioned, and compacted;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declazarion and creek enclosure pemut.
2202 Summit Drive
effective January 6, 2003
page 2
13. that prior to use on the site, all import fill material shall be submitted to the geotechnical engineer
for inspecrion, testing (as necessary), and final approval for use on the site;
14. that the rip rap shall be underlain by a filter fabric to help reduce the potential for future erosion and
loss of the soil under the rip rap caused by water infiltration;
15. that the surface of the new fill section should be provided with a means to minimize erosion of the
near-surface soils;
16. that the existing surface drain pipes shall be connected into new collector pipes that are routed to
the upstream, intake end of the culvert or the new downstream surface drain inlet;
17. that the house roof downspouts shall be connected into a closed pipe system that dischazges directly
in the new culvert pipe;
18. that the surface grading of the fill surface shall be constructed so that the ground slopes down to the
new intake struchue from the upstream side of the surface "ridge" line, and toward the new surface
drain inlet, downstream from the "ridge" line. The ground surface shall be sloped at a minimum
gradient of 5% away from the "ridge" line;
19. that all applicable requirements of NPDES for runoffand drainage will be adhered to in the design
and during construction;
20. that the applicant shall submit a grading plan and erosion control plan for review and approval by
the City Engineer; �
21. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best
Management Practices (BMP's) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm
drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, e�cisting and proposed
topography and slope; areas to be dishubed, locations of cubfill and soil storage/disposal areas;
areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and
structures; watercourse or sensiHve azeas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and
designated construction access routes, staging azeas and washout areas;
22. that off-site runoff shall be diverted azound the construction site and all on-site runofF shall be
diverted around exposed construction areas;
I s1;1: I 1� U 1i{�W
Condirions of approval for mitigated negative declazation and creek enclosure pernut.
2202 Summit Drive
effective January 6, 2003
page 3
23. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences,
straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil
stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and
sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established;
24. that the erosion and sedimentarion control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or
attachments describing the construction operarion and maintenance of erosion and sediment control
measures, including inspection &equency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling
cleazing of vegetafive cover and mulch, including m�;ihc�ds and schedules far planting and
fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation;
25. that no vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in designed
areas where runoff is contained and treated;
26. that all clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical azeas, buffer zones trees, and
drainage courses are clearly delineated with field mazkers or fencing and that adjacent properties
and undisturbed areas are protected from construction impacts with vegetarive buffer strips,
sediment barriers or filters, dikes or mulching;
27. that clearing, earth moving activities and the application of pesticides and fertilizers shall be
performed only during dry weather (April 15 through October 15);
28. that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and
construction;
29. that construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District;
30. that prior to any work in the creek bed, the applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit
&om the State Deparhnent of Fish and Game;
31. that prior to any work in the creek bed, the applicant shall obtain a Protected Tree Removal Permit
from the City of Burlingame for any trees 48-inches in circumference or larger;
32. that prior to any work in the creek bed, the applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary
pernuts from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
E��IT "A"
Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declararion and creek enclosure pernut.
2202 Summit Drive
effecrive January 6, 2003
page 4
33. that unless no construction on days of religious meetings is requested by the nearby religious
center, 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 requested construction shall not occur during tnnes of
scheduled religious meetings; and
34. that should any cultural resources be discovered during consrivcfion, work shall be halted unril they
are fully invesrigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the
recommendations.�+��rne expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City.
� e CITYOFBURLINGAME� . .. . � . �
.. �� PLANNING DEPARTMENT . . � - . . �
••-�E b01 PRIMROSE�ROAD ��.
� �, ,BURLINGAME,-CA94010 � � --
�+�,�rtr.,�µ: � TEC: (650) 558-7250 � - � � . �
2$02 SII4SDfIT DRIVS
A�plicati.'on for a mitigated negative '� '� � -
�Cextend anaexisting concrete culvert PUBLIC HEARING
:�at 2202 Summit�Drive,.zoned R-1:�. . �.. NOT.�CE� . �
' - ('F1PN: 027-27.1-340,) ' � _ � ---- ---`-- ------. .
The City;of Burlingame�Planning ,�, � I
`Co�mnission announces the��.£ollowing . � i
��public'hearing.on Mondap, Decemlier 9, ;
' -�2002� at 7.:30 F.Ma' in'the���City:'FIa11 . �
;`:Council"Chambers located.at SO1:Primrose ',
�';Road; Burlingame,` California.
`Mailed November 27 „2002'
�.
(Please refer to other side) i
:,'GITY OF BIIRLINGAM�'
A copy; of the app]ic z ' mJe ay be reviewed prior
to ttie meeung a Iai ' g� . p ent 1 Primiose Road;
Burluigame, Ca �e
. `" �
st' yog,chal ge. u ma be limited to
ralsing onl os ssues' ed a�he iilic hearing,
described '" c o e ' er d;o the city
aC oLpnor;t , � ,.
. -- � �` A�`.���:L:.i F':'.O 9t;�"�N � i. A ... . � . �
Property o ers Q,F ,. i i onsi or i orming their
� tenarits- abo t thi no } �nFormatio -;ple e oall (650)
558 7250: ank u� '�Cr ii
, P�i' � � �i� < . ' .
Mazgaret '�P:1 � � tg�
City Planner . �.� q�
` �� ': �,
:PU . - � ICE
(Please refer to other side) '