HomeMy WebLinkAbout1032 Cabrillo Avenue - Environmental DocumentCITY OF BURLINGAME
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
File No. ND-528 P, 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, construction of a new two-story, single-family dwelling with
detached garage.
The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on February 6, 2003, completed a review of the proposed
project and determined that:
(XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment
(XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Proiect Description: The parcel at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue consists of three lots (Lot 13, 14, 15) at the
corner of Cabrillo and Cannelita Avenue. A single-family dwelling merges lots 14 and 15. Lot 13 is
developed with a swimming pool used in conjunction with the single family dwelling, but Lot 13 is not
merged to Lots 14 or 15 by the presence of any structures or parking use and is an independently buildable
lot. Sanchez Creek runs the length of the east side of Lot 13.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the swimming pool on Lot 13 to create a parcel with the address of
1032 Cabrillo Avenue. Lot I3 is 12,000 SF (100' width x 120' length} and approximately 60% ofthis area,
or 7,200 SF, is buildable land area above the creek bed level. The proposed dwelling for 1032 Cabrillo
Avenue is two-story with a detached garage. The project meets all zoning code requirements
Reasons for Conclusion: The proposed single-family dwelling is located in a residential area currently
developed with single-family homes of similar size. Therefore, there will be no increase in traffic or
demand for public services. Issues related to the stability of the proposed dwelling, as well as consixuction
impacts to the creek habitat and trees on the site have been adequately addressed by the mitigation
measures contained in the initial study. Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting findings,
it is found that based on the mitigation measures proposed, there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment.
��
Signature of Processing Official
City Planner �`-�� (a. �3
Title Date
T'he determination becomes final after action at a public hearing held before the Planning Commission,
unless the commission's action is appealed to the City Council.
Date posted: February 6, 2003
RECEI VEp
�EB 0 5 2003
COUNT�r MqNqGER
Negative Declaration
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
Declaration 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 Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council
Chambers.
Executed at Burlingame, Califomia on February 6, 2003.
C��/�� -
ANN MUSSO, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME
-2-
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
2
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
1032 Cabrillo Avenue
City of Burlingame, Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
3
4.
5
G�
7.
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning: R-1
Margaret Monroe, City Planner
(650) 558-7250
Parcel with an address of 1032 Cabrillo Avenue,
Burlingame, California
Otto Miller
911 N. Amphlett Blvd.
San Mateo CA 94402
Low-Density Residential
APN: 026-166-170
8. Description of the Project: The parcel at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue consists of three lots (Lot 13, 14, 15) at
the corner of Cabrillo and Cannelita Avenues, with the narrow exterior end of each lot fronting on Cabrillo
Avenue. A single-family dwelling merges lots 14 and 15. Lot 13 is developed with a swimming pool used
in conjunction with the single family dwelling, but Lot 13 is not merged to Lots 14 or 15 by the presence of
any residential structures or related parking use and is an independently buildable lot. Sanchez Creek runs
the length of the east side of Lot 13.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the swimming pool on Lot 13 to create a parcel with the address of
1032 Cabrillo Avenue. Lot 13 is 12,000 SF (100' width x 120' length) and approximately 60% ofthis area,
or 7,200 SF, is buildable land area above the creek bed level. T'he proposed dwelling for 1032 Cabrillo
Avenue is two-story with a detached garage. The project meets all zoning code requirements.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: 'The site is on the north side of Cabrillo Avenue and 100 feet
east of the intersection with Carmelita Avenue. Sanchez Creek runs the length of the east side of the
property and there is a 10-foot public sewer easement at the rear of the site. Cabrillo Avenue
terminates 250 feet east of the site at the city limit bordering the town of Hillsborough. The
surrounding land use is single-family residential. The majority of the existing lots in the neighborhood
are approximately 6,000 to 6,500 SF, with the creek-side lots generally irregularly shaped and having
larger Iot areas.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: A permit will be required from the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District for demolition of the existing sh-uctures.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning X Biological Resources X Aestherics
Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources
X Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recreation
Materials
X Hydrology & Water X Noise Agricultural Resources
Quality
Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Transportarion/Traffic X Utilities and Service
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the envuonment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a" potentially significant impact" or " potentially significant
unless mirigated" irnpact on the envuonment, 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 mirigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIltONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially si�cant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mirigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATNE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are irnposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
��� ZCa�
Marg et onroe, City Planner Date
I
1
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant SigniGcant Signitcant ImpaCt
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regularion
of an agency with jurisdicrion over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program 1,2 X
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan? 1 16 X
�
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population �-owth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastruchue)? 1,3 X
b) Displace substantia} numbers of existing housing, necessitating 3 X
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 3 X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 5,6,7 X
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as deiineated on the most 5,7,21 X
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 5,7,21 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 5,6,7 X
iv) Landslides? 6 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 4,5,21 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 5,21 X
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially X
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 5,6,7,2 X
Uniform Building Code (] 994), creating substantial risks to life 1
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 1,5 X
tanks or altemative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 9,10,11 X
requuements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 1�2I X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Signi£cant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, induding through the alteration of the course of a sh-eam or
river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or 1,4,9,
siitation on- or off=site? 21 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or 1,4,9, X
river, or substanrially increase the rate or amount of surface 21
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runof�'water which would exceed the
capacity of e�cisting or planned storm water drainage systems or 12 i9' X
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,4,9,
21 X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 4,10,12 X
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would 4,10,12 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 X
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundarion 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 district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obsiruct implementation of the applicable air 1,13 �{
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or conhibute to an existing or 1,13 X
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 1,13 X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,13 X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,13 X
people?
6. TRAI�TSPORTATION/I'RAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,4 X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result
in a substantial increase in either the nuinber of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity rario on roads, or con�estion at
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less T6an No
Signi�cant Significant Signiticant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? 15 X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 1,14 X
substantial safety risks? '
d) Substanrially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp 2,4 X
curves or dangerous intersecrions) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 2 X
fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,4 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporking 1,4 X
altemarive transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substanrial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish 1,8,11,
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildiife Service? 19 X
b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 1,11,16
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X
plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Deparhnent
of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Secrion 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but 1,11,16 X
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through d'uect
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or 1,11,16
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established X
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or unpede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1,8,19 X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? .
� Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation l,l 1,16 X
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that 1,1 S X
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific 1,18 X
plan or other land use plan?
9. HA7.ARDS AND H�7.ARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1,17 X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
SigniTicant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 1,2,17 X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile 1,4,17 X
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 1 � X
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public �� 14 X
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in i X
the project azea?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 1�20 X
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fues, including where wildlands are 1,20 X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 1,2,4,9 X
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 1,4 X
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 1 X
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substanrial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1,2,4,9 X
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 1,14 X
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
� For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the 1 X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govemment facilities, the construction of which could
cause si�nificant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources PotentiaUy Potentially Less Than No
Significant SigniTicant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
_ Incorporated
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,20 X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? l X
d) Parks? 1 X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treahnent requirements of the applicable 1,4,9 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construcrion of new water or wastewater 1,4,9 X
trea�nent facilities or expansion of e�sting facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of 1,4,9 X
which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from 1,4,9 X
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 1,9 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 commitrnents?
fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1,9 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 1,9 X
related to solid waste?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 1 X
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
seenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual chazacter or quality of 1,2,4 X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substanrial light or glare which would 1,4 X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
14. CULT'LTRAL RESOURCES. Would the project
a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,4 X
historical resource as defined in'15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,4 X
archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5?
c) D'uectly or ind'uectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1,4 X
or site or unique geological feature?
d) Dishub any hwnan remains, including those interred outside of 1,4 X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Thao No
Signifcant Signiticant Significant Impact
Issues Unless ImpaM
Mitigation
Inrnrporated
formal cemeteries?
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and 1,4 X
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recrearional facilities or require the 1,4 X
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant envirorunental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Deparhnent of Conservarion as an oprional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of 1 X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pwsuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1 X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, 1 X
to non-agricultural use?
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered pIant or animal or eliminate urtportant examples of the 1,4,8,
major periods of California history or prehistory? 11,19 X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X
cumulatively considerable? ("C�mulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects ofpast projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
1
c) Does the project have envuonmental effects which will cause
substanrial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
induectly? 1 X
Initial Study Summary
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1032 Cabrillo Avenue
1 The City ofBurlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, Califomia, 1995 edition.
3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 1994.
4 Site Plan for Lot 13, date stamped January 31, 2003.
5 Departrnent of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1971.
6 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California,
1972.
7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthguake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF,
San Mateo County: California, 1987.
8 Mayne Tree Company Arborist Reports, dated December 20, 2002.
9 Engineering Memos dated July 30 and October 7, 2002.
10 ( LTI buildable lot area and flood plain calcnlations date stamped July 29, 2002, by the Planning Department.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Envirorunental Collaborarive Biological Resource Assessment, dated December 30, 2002.
Map of Approximafe Locations of I00 year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance
Maps, September 16, 1981.
BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December 1995.
San Mateo County Comprehensive airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco Intemational Airport, December 1994.
San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 1997.
Map ofAreas ofSpecial Biologicallmportance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department
of Fish and Game.
State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998.
E. Brabb, F. Taylor, and G. Miller, Geologtc, Scenzc and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, Deparhnent
of Interior, 1982.
City Arborist memo dated August 12, 2002.
Fire Department memo dated August 5, 2002.
Geotechnical Site Investigation, J. Yang and Associates, date stamped by the Planning Department September 16,
2002.
�
Initial Study Summary 1032 Cabrillo Avenue
Land use and Planning Summary: The lot proposed for single-family residential development is 12,000
SF, a density of 3.6 units per acre. The Zoning Code establishes a minimum lot size for this area of 5,000 SF
and the low-density residential designation of the General Plan allows a maximum of 8 units per acre in this
area. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The R-1 zoning
district permits new single-family residences, provided they complete design review to evaluate the
architectural consistency of the design for the proposed dwelling and for the compatibility of the proposed
residence with the neighborhood setting.
Population and Housing Summary: This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density
residential uses. The proposed infill residential development conforms to the City of Burlingame General
Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area.
T'he project is consistent with the City's Housing Element. The proposed project will create more housing by
adding a net number of one house on the site.
Geologic Summary: The lot proposed for development is relatively flat, with an increasing slope near the
creek bed. The site is located in an urban setting that has been developed with single-family homes for
approximately 83 years. It is approximately 2 miles from the San Andreas Fault, but is not within the
Alquist-Priola zone. The site is 2.7 miles from the Serra Fault, a minor thrust fault considered to have
comrnon roots with the San Andreas Fault. There are no known faults on the site. The seismic exposure will
be reduced over the present development, since the residences will incorporate the seismic construction
requirements of the California Building Code, 1998 Edition.
The site is fairly level and does not have a history of landslides. The soil type is designated as QTs, which is
a deformed older sedimentary deposit which primarily consists of irregularly bedded gravel, sand and silt
clay. Under seismic conditions most Burlingame soils are reasonably stable. This site is in a bedrock area
that is below the lowest level (less than 0.01 probability) of liquefaction susceptibility. The project will be
required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability.
The applicant submitted a soils report for the site to study the removal of the existing swimming pool and the
stability of soils for new construction. The footprint of the proposed house, at the southeast corner, will be 6
inches from the existing retaining wall at the top of the creek bank. The soils report recommends that for
maximum stability of the new dwelling, the existing swimming pool shell should be removed and the area be
backfilled to a relative compaction of 95%minimum, and that the foundation type for the new dwelling
should be drilled cast-in-place concrete piers and grade beams. Adherence to the recommendations listed in
the soil report will reduce the impact of construction to a less than significant level.
Mitigation:
• 'That the project shall be required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 1998 Edition, including seismic standards, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural
stability.
• That the project shall conform to the recommendations noted in the Geotechnical Site Investigation by
J. Yang and Associates, date stamped by the Planning Department September 16, 2002; including that
the existing swimming pool shell shall be removed and that the area backfilled to a relative compaction
of 95%minimum, and that the foundation type shall be drilled cast-in-place concrete piers and grade
beams.
10
Initial Study Summary 1032 Cabrillo Avenue
Water Summary: Sanchez Creek runs the length of the East side of the property. This project is a
residential infill development project and the buildable land area on the site is located in Flood Zone B,
which is outside the 100-year flood zone. Based on information submitted by the applicant, the top of bank
line on the site is the top of the existing rock retaining wall. The land area surrounding the creek bed and up
to some portions of the top of bank is located in Flood Zone A and is within the 100-year flood zone. With
the proposed application, there is no construction proposed below the top of bank line or within Flood Zone
A.
Approximately 42 feet from the front property line, a wood plank bridge has been constructed to span
Sanchez Creek and the creek area north of that point was culverted with cement some time after the property
was originally developed in the 1920's. The culvert ends at the northern boundary of the property. There is a
10-foot public sewer easement running along the rear of the property with a cement bridge that spans
Sanchez Creek and carries the sewer line. There is an approximately 10-foot gap where the creek is visible
between the end of the culvert on the subject property and the cement bridge on the public right-of-way.
Public Works records show that at times of high water flow the following two events have occurred: debris
collected to the south side of the wood plank bridge on the site and caused water to run over the top of the
creek bed, and because the culvert restricted the volume of water allowed to flow in the creek, the velocity of
water flow was increased, causing the water to flow over the top of the culvert at the gap near the north end
of the property. Records indicate that in heavy rains these events cause water to flow over the top of the
creek bed and culvert, but not beyond the top of bank retaining wall line. The creek area has been developed
in this manner for a number of years and, in that time, several houses have been built downstream within the
flood plane.
Mitigation:
• That at no time during demolition or construction of the proposed project shall construction work or
materials extend below the top of bank represented by the western face of the existing rock retaining
wall, including but not limited to construction personnel, debris, or equipment.
• That all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet
National Pollution Dischazge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
� That the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best
Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the creek bed or 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 pattems and structures; watercourse or sensitive
areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging
areas and washout areas.
• That off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted
around exposed construction areas.
• That methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain
inlet protection such as 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.
Air Quality Summary: The proposed application is for one single-family residence on Lot 13. While this
project may accommodate more people than the previous use, the change in emissions generated by one new
11
Initial Study Summary 1032 Cabrillo Avenue
house at this location over emissions from all development in Burlingame is insignificant. The site is within
walking distance of countywide bus service. The lot is zoned for low-density residential development and
with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction, the proposed project will not
create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally.
Mitigation:
• That demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required
to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a
demolition, grading or building permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the
BAAQMD permit shall be met.
Transportation/Circulation Summary: The site is on Cabrillo Avenue, a local street that terminates
approximately 250 feet east of the proposed project site, after it intersects with Sanchez Avenue. Cabrillo
Avenue has access to both Sanchez and Cannelita Avenues, both collector streets that provide access to El
Camino Real, a regional arterial. This project will not create a permanent substantial increase in the traffic
generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems in the City have the capacity to
accommodate any incremental traffic or trip generation produced by the proposed net increase of one
dwelling. The proposed single-family dwelling meets the on-site parking requirements established in the
zoning code.
Biological Resources Summary: The site has been fully developed and used for residential uses since
approximately 1920. There are 7 protected-size Redwood trees on site, 4 on the north side of the creek and 3
on the south side of the creek. The four Redwood trees on the north side of the creek are a distance ranging
from 7'-6" to 11'6" to the proposed construction and are below the top of bank/existing retaining wall line.
The 7 Redwood trees will remain on site in their current location with the proposed project. There is no
construction proposed below the top of bank, but there may be a potentially significant impact to the health
of the trees unless mitigation measures are proposed. Protective fencing should be established along the west
(highest level) of the existing rock retaining wall separating the creek and Redwood trees from the buildable
area on the site. No construction or construction materials shall be allowed to extend beyond the western
face of the existing rock retaining wall that represents the top of bank. The applicant must schedule an
inspection with the City Arborist before a demolition permit is issued to insure that the tree protection .
measures are correctly installed and all requirements are being met. These protection measures will reduce
the impact of construction to a less than significant level.
In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with the a single-family residence
is required to provide a minimum of 1, 24-inch box-size minimum non-fruit trees for every 1,000 SF of
living space. The proposed landscape plan for the project provides six 24-inch box size trees and complies
with the reforestation requirements.
A biological survey submitted by the applicant found that due to the existing development of the creek area
on the site, that essential habitat for special-status species is generally absent from the site, and no adverse
impacts on special-status species are anticipated. T'he study states that no coordination with the Army Corps
of Engineers or California Department of Fish and Garne is required, assuming construction is restricted to
outside the creek channel. The report also recommends that construction fencing shall be placed along the
top of the retaining wall bank on the west side of the creek extending along the west side of the redwoods to
be protected. No construction activities or disturbance shall be allowed within this protected zone without
12
Initial Study Summary 1032 Cabrillo Avenue
prior approval of a qualified biologist and approval of jurisdictional agencies, if required.
Mitigation:
• That at no time during demolition, grading, or construction of the proposed project shall construction
work or materials extend beyond the top of bank represented by the western face of the existing rock
retaining wall boundary, including but not limited to construction personnel, debris, or equipment.
• That protective fencing shall be installed along the west side (highest level) of the of the existing rock
retaining wall that separates the creek and Redwood trees from the buildable area on the site.
• That the applicant must schedule an inspection by the City Arborist before a demolition permit is issued
to insure that the tree protection measures are properly installed and requirements are being met.
• That if at any time construction activities extend below the top of bank, that a stop work order shall be
placed on the property until it is determined if the project is subject to review by the Army Corps of
Engineers and/or California Department of Fish and Game and if permits are required.
Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: All gas and electric services are in place with capacity to handle
the addition of the single-family residence proposed with this application. The incremental increase to the
use of energy is insignificant primarily because the new residences will comply with Title 24 requirements.
Hazards Summary: This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its
residential nature, this project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not
interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement.
There are no known health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code
requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new shucture are not
exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. An NPDES permit is required to ensure that runoff
from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways.
Noise Summary: The property has been a part of a site developed for approximately 83 years with a single-
family residence and accessory structures. The new proposal will not permanently increase the existing
ambient noise levels because it is a similar use to the surrounding uses and will be compliant with current
construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuaiion. In addition,
the site is not located in an area regularly subject to unusual noise effects such as airplane fly-overs.
All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code, which limits
construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays
and 10:04 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. There shall be no heavy equipment operation or
hauling on the site on weekends or holidays. 1'hese measures will reduce the impact of the proposed
construction to less than significant.
Mitigation:
• All construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as
amended by the City of Buriingame, which limits to hours of construction to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Sundays and holidays. There shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling on the site on weekends
or holidays.
• That the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise
Ievel within in any sleeping areas in the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA.
13
Initial Study Summary 1032 Cabrillo Avenue
Public Services Summary: Because the project is infill, represents an insignificant increase in the total
population of the City, and is located on an already developed site, the existing public and governmental
services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the net increase of one single-family residence
proposed with the current application.
Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place
in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems.
T'here is an existing 6-inch sewer main running in the easement at the rear of the Lots 13, 14 and 15 that
serves the adjacent properties with frontage on Cabrillo and on Cortez. The proposed single-family dwelling
will connect to this existing main. The main is on the Public Works Department list for frequent
maintenance due to invasive tree roots. In addition, the concrete piers supporting the main are sinking so that
portions of the main sag. The Public Works Department has plans to improve the main by installing a steel
support structure at the termination of the main, at a point just north and east its juncture with the creek.
There will be no significant impact to the capacity or flow of the main sewer line as a result of the proposed
proj ect.
The existing house merging Lots 14 and 15 connects to a 4-inch water main on Cannelita Avenue. All of the
remaining properties along the north side of the 1000 block of Cabrillo Avenue connect to a 1-inch water line
that runs along Cabrillo Avenue and terminates east of the creek. There is also existing 2-inch water line
that runs along Cabrillo Avenue to the south of the 1-inch line that serves the houses on the south side of
Cabrillo Avenue. There are no water mains running along Cabrillo Avenue in front of Lots 13, 14 or 15.
Public Works records indicate that the existing 1-inch and 2-inch water lines closest to the subject property
cannot accommodate the water demands of an additional single-family dwelling. Therefore, prior to being
issued a building permit, the property owner shall be required to prepare and submit to the City Engineer a
plan for approval for design, construction and installation of appropriate water to the proposed dwelling on
Lot 13. The service shall be designed so that it will not negatively impaci the existing residences that are
services by the water mains on the 1000 block of Cabrillo Avenue.
Sanchez Creek runs along the Eastern length of the property. The site is tied into the existing storm water
distribution line located in front of Lot 13. There is adequate capacity in the storm water collections system
to accommodate the additional storm water run-off generated by a single-family dwelling on Lot 13. All of
the surface water will be required to drain to the street frontage.
The current solid waste service provider is BFI, which sends solid waste collected in Burlingame to the Ox
Mountain Landfill. Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general
contractor shall be required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream by transporting the construction waste
separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid waste generated during operation of the
project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial.
The City of Burlingame has recently adopted an ordinance requiring recycling of construction waste and
demolition debris. The ordinance requires that 60 percent of the total waste tonnage generated from project
construction shall be diverted from the waste stream. The applicant is required to complete a Recycling and
Waste Reduction Form to be reviewed and approved by the Chief Building Official. It is required that
records shall be kept and submitted to the City prior to the final inspection of the project.
14
Initial Study Summary 1032 Cabrillo Avenue
Mitigation:
• That the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department
to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 percent of construction
demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible
for the implementation of this plan.
• That prior to being issued a building permit, the property owner shall be required to prepare and submit
to the City Engineer a plan for approval for design, construction and installation of appropriate water to
the proposed dwelling on Lot 13; the service shall be designed so that it will not negatively impact the
existing residences that are services by the water mains on the 1000 block of Cabrillo Avenue.
Aesthetics Summary:
The proposed two-story single-family residential dwelling with detached garage will be replacing an existing
swimming pool. 'The proposed dwelling is subject to design review to insure that it is internally
architecturally consistent in design and consistent with the existing size and mass of the dwellings in the
neighborhood. At this particular location, the land is flat and the area fully developed; no distant views or
vistas are present.
The 7 Redwood trees on site provide much of the ambience in the area and these trees will be protected
during construction and remain after construction. The applicant is proposing to fully landscape the lot as
shown on plans approved by the Planning Commission. The approved landscape plans meet the City's Urban
Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance.
Because of building placement and added vegetation, there will be no significant increase in light and glare
on site from the proposed residential uses. Exterior lighting provided on the lot will be required to conform
to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be directed onto the site. The
average front setback for the block is 22'-6" and the proposed residence matches this setback.
Mitigation:
• That this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance.
• That the applicant shall protect existing and proposed landscaping on the site as shown on the plans
approved by the Planning Commission.
• That the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before any demolition or
construction takes place on the site.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES SUMMARY: The site involved in this project has been developed in
residential uses for many years prior to this proposal. The project will not include extensive grading or
digging, since the sites are relatively level and there are no below grade living areas proposed. Any
archeological or historic, cultural, or etluiic sites, which 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 conshuction, work will be halted until they are fully investigated.
Mitigation:
• That should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all 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.
IS
Initial Study Summary
1036 Cabrillo ,4venue
15. RECREATION SUMMARY: The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing
recreational facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of
Burlingame. The sites involved in this project are not presently zoned or used for recreational uses.
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES:
that the project shall be required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1998 Edition, including seismic standards, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural
stability;
2. that the project shall conform to the recommendations noted in the Geotechnical Site Investigation by J.
Yang and Associates, date stamped by the Planning Depariment September 16, 2002; including that the
existing swimming pool shell shall be removed and that the area backfilled to a relative compaction of
95%minimum, and that the foundation type shall be drilled cast-in-place concrete piers and grade
beams;
3. that at no time during demolition or construction of the proposed project shall construction work or
materials extend below the top of bank represented by the western face of the existing rock retaining
wall, including but not limited to construction personnel, debris, or equipment;
4. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
5. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best
Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the creek bed or 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 cutlfill 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;
6. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted
around exposed construction areas;
7. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain
inlet protection such as 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;
8. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required
to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a
demolition, grading or building permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the
BAAQNID permit shall be met;
9. that at no time during demolition, grading, or construction of the proposed project shall construction
�
1
Initial Study Summary ] 036 Cabrillo Avenue
work or materials extend beyond the top of bank represented by the western face of the existing rock
retaining wall boundary, including but not limited to construction personnel, debris, or equipment;
10. that protective fencing shall be installed along the west side (highest level) of the of the existing rock
retaining wall that separates the creek and Redwood trees from the buildable area on the site;
11. that the applicant must schedule an inspection by the City Arborist before a demolition permit is issued
to insure that the tree protection measures are properly installed and requirements are being rnet;
12. that if at any time construction activities extend below the top of bank, that a stop work order shall be
placed on the property until it is determined if the project is subject to review by the Army Corps of
Engineers and/or California Department of Fish and Game and if permits are required;
13. that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as
amended by the City of Burlingame, which limits to hours of construction to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Sundays and holidays. T'here shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling on the site on weekends
or holidays;
14. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise
level within in any sleeping areas in the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA;
15. that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department
to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 percent of construction
demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the properly owner shall be responsible
for the implementation of this plan;
16. that prior to being issued a building permit, the property owner shall be required to prepare and submit
to the City Engineer a plan for approval for design, construction and installation of appropriate water to
the proposed dwelling on Lot 13; the service shall be designed so that it will not negatively impact the
existing residences that are services by the water mains on the 1000 block of Cabrillo Avenue;
17. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance;
18. that the applicant shall protect existing and proposed landscaping on the site as shown on the plans
approved by the Planning Commission;
19. that the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before any demolition or
construction takes place on the site; and
20. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until they
are fully investigated by a professionai accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the
recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City.
17