Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000 Burlingame Ave - Environmental DocumentC��otice of Exemption To: � � Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk County of San Mateo ,� . � . � �� Q .f�__- FroRI: (Public Agency) City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, �(;A `ss�4010 P�OjECtTltl@: Irrigation Water Mains to City Parks and Municipal Facilities PfOj2Ct LOC�3t1011 - Sp2CIfiC: from ad�acent to WashinQton Park (Burlineame Avenue) throughout city to parks and public landscape areas P1'ojeCt LOCatIOn - City: Burlingame Project Locatfon - County: san Mateo DeSCI'IptlOn Of ProjeCt: _ Laying a new 4" to 6", 12�50 linear foot pipeline system to distribute well water from a city well adjacent to Washington Park. Project includes trenching, installation of PCV transmission pipeline with valved connections and backfilling. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: city of Burli Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Ralph xirkup, Public Works Department Exempt Status: (check one) ❑ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 152b8); ❑ Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); ❑ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)); �Categorical Exempuon. State type and section number: ❑ Statutory Exemp[ions. Sta[e code number: Code Sec. 15303 Class 3 New Construction water main and 15304-4f Minor trenching and backfill Reasons why project is exempt: The proj ect is minor in nature and meets the criteria for categorical exemption as set out in Code Sec. 15303 Class 3 and 15304-4f. Since the project is to supplement irrigation water for public open space it will have no growth inducing impacts. Lead Agency Contact Person: Meg Tlonroe/Ralph Kirkup pr�C��elephone/Extension: i415) 696-7250 If filed by applicant: 1. AUach cer[ified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a Nopce of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? � Yes ❑ No Signature: ��,jf�' ��_ __ Date: May 17, 1993 TiUe: City Planner � � Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR: ❑ Signed by Applicant (`��P (�t#� o# �uzltrc�ttme PLANNING DEPARTMENT GTY HALL - SOI PRIMROSE ROAD BURLING/+ME. CALIFORNIA 940i0-3997 re� (415) 696-7250 �nx (415) 342-83H6 May 17, 1993 Mr. Price Walker Clearinghouse Representative- San Mateo County Office of Planning and Research 1400 - lOth Street Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Mr. Walker, Enclosed you will find a Notice of Exemption Exemption for the extension of irrigation mains fr< several nearby public open spaces. We are fili Exemption with OPR because we are applying for so� the project and the applicable agency requires th� document be filed with OPR. At the same time we you we are also filing the Categorical Exemption County Clerk's office. They will post the document days. We will let you know riqht away if anyon regarding the finding of exemption during the rev: for a Categorical �m a new city well to ng this Categorical te State funding for it the environmental are mailing this to with the San Mateo for the requisite 30 � raises any issues _ew period. I realize that this submittal is a little out of the ordinary. I hope it does not confuse things on your end. If you have any questions regarding the submittal or the project please contact me at (415) 696- 7250 or Ralph Kirkup, the Public Works Director, at (415) 696-7230. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, I� C� � i��— Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/ enc. cc. Ralph Kirkup, Director of Public Works � �^^� �^ � � t J Honorable A. C. "Bud" Harrison, Mayor APR 2 4 1993 Page Three o Secure the services of a Fiscal Agent to assist in administering repayment of the loan. Complete and return to DWR a Fiscal Services Agreement (form 600) in triplicate, as indicated on the enclosed sample; refer to enclosed instructions. o Submit an itemized list of all necessary permits and approvals required by other State, Federal, and/or local agencies as required by Section 10 of the enclosed contract. This list must specify the type of permit or approval required, the name of the agency requiring it, and the date the permit was obtained. PLEASE NOTE: The following two requirements must be satisfied and the authorizing resolution referenced in the first requirement submitted before DWR will sign the loan agreement. r o U As required by the California Environmental Quality Act, documentation must be provided for the distribution portion of the construction project. The Lead Agency for your project must file a Notice of Determination or Notice of Exemption as appropriate with the State Office of Planning and Research, and record the Notice with the County Clerk. Provide DWR a copy of the recorded Notice along with a written statement from the Lead Agency's legal counsel certifying that no 1ega1 challenges have been made within the specified statute of limitations for the Notice of Determination or Exemption. Conduct a public meeting as required by the bond law, or hold an election as required by your enabling authority. See "Public Meeting" enclosure (form 601/44). Section 450.7 of the Administrative Regulations requires that you notify the Department of Water Resources in writing before vou commence construction, of the date construction is to begin. You must submit to DWR a summary of all bids before awarding construction contracts over $20,000, or contracts in any amount and for any purposes for which competitive bids are required under your enabling authority. �� `�t% �"'-_"�' --�`� �5...���i'_: C �a..- . . _, ; . �. _ _ - � - _. - .. ' \,� C� (� 4 ��f �: 1'�' l'� � � '�` �— �►1l�'i � �lY')l,lh -�1-��'v`�1 , i. �:Y � �� ry� W "CJ � • 1 \�-J �`.� �'�;' �� �'�.1�J"t -\ �1� �, ��,1'� �,� �� �L i '`)�'' V` = � � � " ���'�] /) + '�yi��'tit �?� � -'s'�;-?'�_ `�.�'4'' L` �.`�'.. Q � _ � . � �Y � . � i , . �.. y ' '.^'�+ � � . C V ,�fu��Q/�' �� _'"� �� � ��l_. , MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: TOPIC: COMMENTS: Ralph Kirkup Jane Gomery April 15, 1993 Environmental review new Washington Park municipal facilities of irrigation water mains from well to City parks and other We have reviewed the environmental impact of the proposed pipeline system from Washington Park Well to City parks and municipal facilities. The new 4" to 6", 12,250 linear foot pipeline system carrying well water will not have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed construction of the PVC transmission pipeline will include trenching, installation with valved connections, and backfilling. This project is categorically exempt per CEQA Code Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(d), Water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions of reasonable length to serve new, small facilities; and 15�304 - Minor Alterations to Land Class 4(f), Minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored. The existing Washington Park Well received negative declaration ND - 456 in May, 1992 and consequently filed a Notice of Determination with the County in July, 1992 (#10385). MEMO TO: Ralph Kirkup FROM: Jane Gomery DATE: April 15, 1993 TOPIC: Environmental review of irrigation water mains from new Washington Park well to City parks and other municipal facilities COMMENTS: We have reviewed the environmental impact of the proposed pipeline system from Washington Park Well to City parks and municipal facilities. The new 4" to 6", 12,250 linear foot pipeline system carrying well water will not have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed construction of the PVC transmission pipeline will include trenching, installation with valved connections, and backfilling. This project is categorically exempt per CEQA Code Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(d), Water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions of reasonable length to serve new, small facilities; and 155304 - Minor Alterations to Land Class 4(f), Minor trenchinq and backfilling where the surface is restored. The existing Washington Park Well received negative declaration ND - 456 in May, 1992 and consequently filed a Notice of Determination with the County in July, 1992 (#10385). / � � I/, i � � 1 /t.Y.�.P �G.Y� .a� ���.IJ-[L.�i� SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 1597-1 January 25, 1993 State of California The Resource Agency Department of Water Resources Division of Local Assistance 1020 - 9th Street Sacramento, California 95814 Attn: Mr. Dan Otis, Manager Loans and Grants Administration Subject: Washington Park Well - Revised Project Cost Dear Mr. Otis: In accord with our meeting on January 12, 1993, and the City's "Supplemental Information - January 1993", the City requests an increase in the loan amount to $447,700. As discussed, we have prepared enclosed documents summarizing the reasons for the revised costs and a new project budget summary. This summary cost table is divided into Onsite Well and Appurtenance Costs (Table 1), and Pipeline Distribution System Costs (Table 2). It is expected that the City Council will, at their meeting on February 17, 1993, authorize the California Bond Law Loan application for construction funding in the amount of $447,700. It will also consider the enclosed Policy statement regarding implementation of use of this new water supply. Please inform us if there is any other information to be furnished in order to confirm the loan application. Sincerely, �,�'.�-yI Ralph E. Rirkup REK:vr Enclosure Attachment A-3 (Revised 1/93) To ensure that the annual yield of 100 acre-feet (AF) of ground water from the Washington Park well will be completely utilized, it is proposed that it be distributed to City owned parks and other locations where it will replace the use of imported potable water now used for irrigation and similar uses not requiring this higher quality potable water. A City policy has been adopted that ensures the application of this new source of water supply to its full capability. A copy of the Policy Statement is enclosed. The estimated cost of construction of the facilities required to develop the well and its appurtenant facilities at Washington Park is $259,000. To distribute approximately 100 AF per year to City facilities for use therein, approximately 12,250 feet of water mains are proposed for construction. This cost, along with the cost of piping modifications (to separate potable water service), totals $188,700. These principal facilities to be constructed for the above sums are set forth in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. To assist in the construction of both the well facilities as well as the pipeline distribution system that will convey this water to points of usage, the City application is for a loan in the amount of $447,700. Attachment A-3 Table 1 CONSTRUCTION COST OF WELL SITE FACILTI'IES January 1993 ACTUAL COST TO DATE 1. 400 foot deep test hole and geophysical logging 2. 225 foot deep packed well with 8-inch casin� conductor casing and well screens 3. 225 foot deep observadon well with 6-inch casing and screens Subtotal (Actual) ESTIMATED ADDIT70NAL COSTS 4. l75 foot settin� I50 gpm submersible pump S. Meter, valves and appurtenances 6. Motor control center & service 7. Chlorination equipment 8. S00 feet of 4 and 6-inch PVC transmission pipeline with valved connecdons 9. Building at well site I0. Storage and hydropneumatic tank 11. Booster pumps and accessories I2. Standby engine generator Su6total (Estimated) Engineering and Contingencies Ciry Construction Managemefit & Administration TOTAL Feasibility Study C-e�:_7•_I`�I��17 $ 77, 984 7,500 2, 000 I5, 000 1, 000 I0, 000 8, 000 I5, 000 5, 000 I S, 000 78, 500 50, 000 43.016 $249,500 9. S00 $259, 000 SOPPT�'rAL INFORXATION - AASHINGTON PARIC WBLL LQAN APPLICATION January 1993 ATTACHI�ENT A-3 Table 2 CONSTRUCTION COSTS PIPELINE � APPIIRTENANCES Facility Construction No. Description Cost, Dollars PHA.SE A 1 900 feet of 6-inch PVC pipeline 13,500 2 3,100 feet of 4-inch plastic pipeline 31,000 A1 Retrofit potable water irrigation 6,000 system - City Hall A2 Water service station 10,000 Subtotal 60,500 Engineering & Contingencies @ 20 $ 12,100 Phase A Total 72,600 PHA.SE B 3 3600 feet of 4-inch plastic pipeline 36,000 3A 250 feet of 4-inch steel pipeline in RR culvert 4,000 B1 Retrofit potable water truck & fire hose system at Fire Station No. 1 5,000 B2 Retrofit potable water irrigation system - Alpine Park 2,000 B3 Retrofit potable water irrigation system - Paloma Park 3,000 Subtotal 50,000 Engineering & Contingencies @ 20 $ 10,000 Phase B Total 60,000 Phase C 4 3,300 feet of 3-inch plastic pipeline 31,350 5 1,100 feet of 2-inch plastic pipeline 9,900 C1 Retrofit potable water irrigation system - Victoria Park 3,000 C2 Retrofit potable water irrigation system - Trenton Park 2,500 Subtotal 46,750 Engineering & Contingencies @ 20 $ 9,350 Phase C Total 56,100 GRAND TOTAL 188,700 SiIPPL�Z�7TAL INFORHATION - WASFIINGTON PARR ASLL LC�N APPLICATION January 1993 Nc'.!�'�^�f Deterr�ination To: _ Office of Planning and Resea�h 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk Countyof San Mateo County Government Center Redwood City, CA 94063 /��� -" Planninq Department From: (Public Agency) Citv of Burlincrame 501 Primrose Road (Adttress) Burlingame, CA 94010 FILED ICOUNTY CLERKORECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY. CALIF. � JUL 0 91992 .�J=A c�/�G'�Lu_.c_� �-�--� ..- I SUbf@Ct: DEPUTYCLERK �- � Filing of Notice of Determination (n compliance with Sect(on 21108 or 21152 of the Pubiic Resources Code. Negative Declaration for new well and storage facilities at 1000 Burlingame Ave., Washington Park, and to abandon two wells at BurlinQame Hiqh School, ProiQCtTitlp 400 Carolan Avenue City of Burlingame, Plannina Dept., Margaret Monroe (415) 342-8625 State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Area Code/Telephone/Extension (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person 1000 Burlingame Avenue & 400 Carolan Av-enue, BurlinQame. Calif.. San 1Mateo ProjeCt LoCatlOn (include county) County The City of Burlingame proposes to develop a replacement wellwith Project Description: storage tanks to irrigate Washington Park and Burlingame High ��hool; and the well will provide an available supplemental water supply in the event of an emergency when the city's water supply from San Francisco Water Depar�ment could be shut down for an extended period of time. Two existing wells adjacent to Burlingame High School, currently used to irriqate the school grounds, would be abandoned with the development of the new well. This is to advise that the C i ty of Bur 1 ingame has approved the above described pmject on � Lead Agrncy � Responsible Agency May 11 , 19 9 2 and has made the following det�erminadons regarding the above described pmject (Dace) 1. The project [Owill �will not] have a significant effect on the environment 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this pmject pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ��".::egauve �eciara[ion was prepared £or this project pursuant to the provisions of C.`EQP.. 3. Mitigadon measares [�were �were not] made a condidon of the approval of the pmjec� 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations ([]was �was not] adopted for this projecG 5. Findings [�were ❑were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final EIIt with comments and responses and record of projec[ approval is available to the General Public at: City Hall, City of Burlinqame, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Date received for filing a[ OPR: Revised October 1989 ,, ,. /���s California Department of Fish and Game CERTIFICATE OF FEE E%EMPTION De Minimis Impact Findinq Project Title/Location (include county): See Negative Declaration ND-456P for Washington Park Well and Storage Tanks at 1000 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California, San Mateo County Projsct T��scr��tion: See Negative Declaration ND-456P posted May 4, 1992 Findinqs of Exemption (attach as necessary): The City of Burlingame finds that on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received there is no substantial evidence the proposed project will have a significant effect on wildlife or its habitat. The attached evaluation provides additional documentation and support for this finding. Certification: I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. IV1 G�,�` �UI �u►��- hi Planning Official Title: City Planner Lead Agency: City of Burlingame Date:� � ��cj2. CITY OF BIIRLINGAME NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND - 456P for Washinaton Park Well and Storage Tanks at 1000 Burlingame Avenue. Burlinaame California The City of Burlingame by MARGARET MONROE on May 4, 1992 , 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. Description of Project: The City of Burlinga:.ne pro�ese� *� aer�� cg a r��7ZaC2i:lciat we�l with storage tanks to irrigate Washington Park and Burlingame High School; and the well will provide an available supplemental water supply in the event of an emergency when the City's water supply from San Francisco Water Department could be shut down for an extended period of time. Two existing wells adjacent to Burlingame High School, currently used to irrigate the school grounds, would be abandoned with the development of the new well. These two existing wells, with a total capacity of 100 gallons per minute are 50 to 70 years old and have deteriorated well screens which impede the free inflow to the pumps. Present wells are located on Burlingame High School property and the new well will be located nearby at Washington Park on City of Burlingame property. The proposed 300 to 400 foot deep gravel packed well would yield about 150 gpm. The Washington Park irrigation system can be operated using 40 gpm of the well's 150 gpm capacity. The remaining 110 gpm capacity will be available for the high school irrigation system which requires 50 to 100 gpm. The new project would include a 400 foot test hole; electrical service and moto� control center; 300-400 foot 30 inch well; well and booster pumps; emergency generator; above ground storage tanks; piping, valves and meters; and a building to secure and protect the equipment. The well water wouid 'nave a high dissolved mineral content, suitable for irrigation, but would require disinfection to meet current safe drinking water standards. Disinfection for the water supplied during an emergency will be provided by a temporary chlorine feeder. The Merced Formation is the principal aquifer available for the new well. The younger Colma Formation is thought to overlie the Merced and serves as a secondary aquifer source where the water table has not declined below it. Thickness of either formational unit is uncertain in this area. The local aquifer groundwater is recharged mainly from percolation of stream runoff in outcrop areas. (Refer to report by JWA consulting engineers, A Feasibility Study of the Washington Park Well, Phase 1, City of Burlingame, September, 1991). Reasons for Conclusion: The development of the new well to replace the abandoned wells will not have a significant impact on the environment. The environmental checklist studied the impacts on the earth, air, water, plant life, animal life, noise, light and glare, land use, natural resources, risk of upset, population, housing, transportation/circulation, public services, energy, utilities, human health, aesthetics, recreation, cultural resources, and findings of significance. Existing wells and surface irrigation systems currently use the same amount of water but from different sources. The school uses the wells to be abandoned for irrigation and the park uses the San Francisco water supply to irrigate. The use of the new wells at 150 gpm to replace existing wells and domestic water sources will only be a change in the source of the �ater and no* a �hange in the ama4n� cf watEr ussd. The same amount of water will be applied on the surface to percolate into the aquifer. The new well will improve available irrigation water for maintenance of Washington Park and the high school creating a positive impact on local recreational facilities. Also the well will provide an additional water supply for community emergencies again improving public services for the city. The city will continue to meet water conservation and landscaping guidelines with the new well. The development of the wells and its facilities is consistent with the General Plan and ecology of the area, and the surrounding park and high school uses, therefore, it should not result in any adverse environmental impacts on adjacent sites. The project is appropriate for a developed park site. If designed to meet city, state, and county requirements as approved there is no substantial evidence that the project will have significant effect on the environment. _ Sign tu e of Pr cessing Official � C c 2� ' le at igned Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. Date posted• 7 /� Declaration of Postina I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on ���� ?" , 1992. Appealed: ( ) Yes ( ) No " JUDIT�i AjMALFATTI, CITY CLERK,�TY OF BURLINGAME J` c 9� � '�� �/ � � � �2�Nc�s�o SAN Qo� 0��0 �,�P�_ Q+r 1 ;1 ` .1 � '� m '1 \\\\\�\ �P � _ P� �� v f( /�.._ .. " �4 � V � `'J ,o ! _ __ PRpJECT LOCATION ' ���� C �-> � � — BaYSI,t�RE F�PEEWAr �� �/ a - q^ „ �,/ � F� �/ /`� 4o�lL(�` ---�— � � � � i� ,/ / Q <.00 p. / � ♦ / ��/ � L � � � P R� P �/�\ O �iN '�,f� .�//�� � (��1y\ � \r �� �� � �J O Cj: J J ('A QE, /,/ � �7� O 1� P �y o � .�� \ � AYF V E4n+\� / c p��\��-a�\_ �'rl+`Sb ` P �� �4P �Sp� ac � ����.. \ �. �C�\L�F` yG �� . \ � A�?- `,�g �,�� �`��`�'�� \� �� �� � � BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL � �' ;"� ��'�. \��<�� E � � �Ali ��� �; ?�� f+ �v� � v �� vv /��l ,��,,,���� WASHINGTON PARK �F ��� ��� �.'yC, ���rf� . 4, �, �V r `\ �v \ ) ^ gO9 � H � \`� Sr �� 4 �PO )v// � / � J O t \YO� �' R�� � Q �� �� Ao y� /' � /� � � � ^�o S �Q�F �.� ��4yJfl oR.y � p ^ / C�\\ '�. �/ ` � t �.�� / \ � � O/\ / � �y ��"O ,� � � Py �� ��, " � < � .,�7J,' \ { (�'�. !/iq� o O �4, � � � � 4�� 4 � � �P / 4 ; �Q�' �,. _ /\ � c�`lY/ � : � . <� . ( .. 'l(�<� ��,��� f� A[ ,P p P•T� � (�. , / \ J J F �'�'� �� �° $� � Pn� h <� �_��� � '��� � � �<� Qi�� {��� �� �� �/ / �� �� ,� ���0 .��i� � �/ � � �� l�nr�� ��� �� � ��,���� I}�f � L L'u=' 1"d S� �i�. CITY OF BURLINGAME SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA REVISEO: " I I� g' I�g�J wee' � GR�PHIC 4GLE ���er�c�c v Environmental Impact Checklist 1. E@�. Will the proposal resiilt in: a. Unstable earth oonditions or changes in gedogic substruchues? b. Disuptions, displac�a�ts, compadion or ov�covering of the soil? c Q�ange in topography or gnund svrfaoe relief features? d The destrudion, mvaing or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any inaease in wind or wata erosion of soils, atha on or off the site? f. Qianges in depositlon or aosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or aosion that may modify che channel of a riva or stream or the bed of the ooean or any bay, inlet a lake? g. Exposure of people or property to gedogic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, gound failure, or similaz hazards? 2�. W i ll t he p ro p o s a l r e s v lt in: Yes Maybe No � � � � a. Substantial air emissions or det�ioraHon of ambient air quality? . b. The Qeatian of obje4ionable odors? c Altaatlon of air movement, moisture, or t�perature, or any change in climate, eitha locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. CCi»anges in curraits, or the course or direction of water mov�aits, in eitha marine or hesh waters? b. Qianges in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the ratc and amount of surface runoEf? c AltQadons to the couise or flow of flood wate:s? d Qiange in the amount of s�faoe water in any rrater body? e. Lhschazge inro surface waters, or in any alteration of surface wata quality, induding but not limited to tempe3ature, dissolved oxygen or turbidiEy? 4. Plent Lfie. Will the proposal result in: a. Q�an ge in the diversity of spedes, or number of any spedes of plants (including trees, s}uubs, grus, anps, �nd aquatic plancs)? b. Roduction of the numbas of any unique, raze, or endangezod sprdes of plants? e Introdudion of new spc•des of plants into an area, or in a barriez to the normal replenishmcTt of existlng spedes? d. Reduction in aQeage of any agriculrivai Qop? S. Anlmel Llfe. Will the proposal result in: a. Qian�e in the divecsity of spcades, or numbers of spe�ies of animals (birds, land animals inciuding reptiles, fish and shelIGsh, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Roduction of the numbas of any unique, rare, or endangered spe�des of animaLs? c Introduction oE new spedes of animaLs inco an area, or result in a bama to the mi�ratlon ot movemait of animaLs? 6. Noise. Will the propasa] result in: a. Inaea9es in edsang noise levels? b. Fxpasure of people to sevae noise levels? 7. 11aht and Glare. Will the proposa] produce new Light or glaze? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantlal aiteration of the presait or planned ]and tise of an azea? 9. Naturel Resources. Will che propo6al resuit in: a. Inaease in the rate of use of any natural resouzces? b. Substantial depietion of any nonraiewable nahaal reso�sce? 10. Rlsk of Uoset. Will the pmposal involve: a. A tisk of an exploson or the release of hazardrnss substanoes including, but not limited to, oil, pestiddes, cheaticals or radiaaon) in the event of an acddent or upset mnditions? b. Poasible interfaence wich an �agaxy response plan or an emagency evacvation plan? 11• P°°u�. Will the proposai alta the location, distributlon, density, or growth rate of the h�an popuiatlon of an area. 12. Housfno. Will the proposal affect existing ho�sing, or amte a d�and for additional housing? Locul water supply project construction � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Page A-19 ., _ , �. 13. TrnnaoortatloNCirculatlon. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effecb on existing pazldng fadlities, or d�and for new par{dng? c Substantial impact upon e�dsting transportation syst�s? d. Alterations to present pattems of drevlatlon or movement of people and/or goods? e Alterations to rvateborne, rail or air traffic? f. Inaease in traffic hazards to motor vehic]es, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Publlc Icea. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or msult in a need for new or altered govanmental s�vices m any a the followuig azeas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protedion? e. SchooLs? d Parks or otha re�eational fadlities? e. Maintenance of public fadlities, including roads? f. Otha govetnmental savices? 15. Eneray. "vVill the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial inQease in demand upon edsting souroes of aiergy, or require develapment of new sources of energy7 16. Uillft�es. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilibes? a. Power or natural gas? b. Communimtions systems? c Watcr? d. Sewcr or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainagc? f. Solid waste and dispoeal? 17. Humen Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Cseation of any health hazard or potential health ha7ard (excluding mental hea(th)? b. Fxposure of people to potential health hazardv? 18. Aesthetica. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view opa� ro the public, or will the proposal result in the Qeation of an a�thedmlly oHensive site open to public view? 19. Recreatlon. Will the proposal result in an impad upon the quality or quantity of existing maeatlonal opporturut�? 20. CuHural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destnxtlon of a prehistoric or histonc azchaeologimi site? b. Will the proposal result in advecse physiml or aesthetic effeds to a prehisroric or hisroric building, structure or object? c Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical diange that would affect unique ethnic evltural values? d Will the proposal rgtrid e�dsting religious or saaed uses within the potential impad ama? :�. .• ��• �• •� i : � : a. Do� the pro�'ect have the pot�tial to degrade the qualitv of the envitonment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wil�ife species, muse a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustauung %veis, thzeaten to rliminate a plant or azumal mmmunitv, reducx the number or restrid the ran�e of a rare or endangered plant or animal or rTiminate important exampCes of the major periods of California his�ory or prehistory? b. Does the project have the pot�tial to achieve short-tam, to the disadvantage ofof long-tam, eivizonmaital goals? (A short-term impact on the �vironmait is one that omus in a relaaveiy brief, definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well inro the future) Yes Maybe No � � � � � � �� �� � � � � � � � � J � � � c Does the project have impacLs that are individually limited, but cvmulatively considerable? (A project mav � imvact on two or more sepazate r�oure� where the impact on each resource ig relatively small, but whcse the effect of the total of those impacts on the aivironmait is szgufimnt. d. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial advase elfects on human beings, either � dirrctly or jnduectly7 Page A-20 I�cai umter supply projert canstruetion f California Department of Fish and Game CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Findinq Project Title/Location (include county): See Negative Declaration ND-456P for Washington Park Well and Storage Tanks at 1000 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California, San Mateo County Project Description: See Negative Declaration ND-456P posted May 4, 1992 Findinqs of Exemption (attach as necessary): The City of Burlingame finds that on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received there is no substantial evidence the proposed project will have a significant effect on wildlife or its habitat. The attached evaluation provides additional documentation and support for this finding. Certification: I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. ���-i� �� hi Planning Official Title: City Planner Lead Agency: Citv of Burlingame Date : � b 1��2.. � STATE OF CAIIFORNIA—THE RESOURCE$ AGENCY � PETE WILSON, Go.ernor UEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME .:-"�-` :rvc' �: P.O. BOX 944209 r n SACRAMENTO, CA 9424d-2090 „ ,_ �`a.j���. (916) 445-3531 a � :: � ir� L, ,� T0: Lead Agency June 28, 1991 "+-%'-1992 � OF BURLI�dGA;�+z 'Uct�NR,G OEpr Environmental Filing Fees Recently enacted legislation (AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, effective January 1, 1991) requires that the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) impose and collect filing fees as specified to defray the cost of managing and protecting fish and wildlife trust resources. These filing fees are collected during the environmental review process and are intended to be paid at the time the lead agency files a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk in which the project is located. This procedure is required pursuant to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. A project for which a Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall pay a fee of $1,250.00. A project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared pursuant to Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code shall pay a fee of $a5o.00. A project found by the lead agency to be de minimis in its effect on the environment pursuant to DFG regulations shall pay no fee, provided a Certificate of Fee Exemption is presented at the time the Notice of Determination is filed. The enclosed Notice of Determination is being returned to you and will not be filed until the fee required under Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d) is paid. Without the appropriate fee or de minimis finding, the project is not operative, vested or final and the Notice of Determination will not be accepted by the County Clerk. In addition, the County Clerk is authorized to charge a$25.00 documentary handling fee for each Notice of Determination and has the discretion to not accept a filing until the handling fee is paid. To properly file your enclosed Notice of Determination, please remit the Notice with the appropriate fees to the County Clerk at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, �...��i �I S u,��,� � Pete Bontadelli Director ' Enclosure i � � MEMO TO: RALPH KIRKUP FROM: Jane Gomery DATE: September 16, 1991 TOPIC: WASHINGTON PARR WELL - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SUBJECT: There are two environmental review processes required depending on the type of well project. 1. If the well is a replacement well for an abandoned well(s) at Burlingame High School then the new well would be categorically exempt per CEQA Code Section 15302 Class 2(c) Replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving negliqible or no expansion of capacity. 2. If the well is new and includes a storage tank we suggest an Initial Study and Negative Declaration be prepared. In Municipal Code Resolution 62-89 "Adopting Environmental Review Procedures" (attached) notice shall be given to: a. all organizations who have previously requested such notice (ie. the County Health Department), b. all property owners within 300 feet, and c. posting of notice in a place accessible to the public in city hall. We would anticipate the public review period for the Negative Declaration should not be less than 10 days. The State Clearinghouse does not require an environmental review unless the project has statewide or area wide significance. Since in our determination it does not, the Negative Declaration would only be a local document and would not need to be filed with OPR. This will reduce the review period. The Planning Department would prepare the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and do the Noticinq of the project. We will place the item on the Planning Commission agenda so that there is opportunity for public input during the review process. cc: Bill Roman, JWA Consulting Engineers RESOLUTION NO 62-89 ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, California, that: WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act requires various environmental documents and reviews as a part of matters determined by the City and this Council, and WHEREAS, administrative procedures for public review and participation of such environmental documents have been in effect for many years, but not formally promulgated by this Council: NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered and determined that the Public Input Procedures for Environmental Review attached to this re.solution are hereby confirmed and adopted as the procedures which shall be followed for the public review and hearing procedures of environmental documents in the City of Burlingame under the California Environmental Quality Act. C Mayo I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the lSth day of MaY , 1989, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: AMSTRUP, BARTON, MANGINI, PAGLIARO NOES: COUNCILMEN: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: LEMBI City•Clerk • CITY OF BURLINGAME PUBLIC INPUT PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the city is mandated to review every development project for its effect on the environment. The environmental effects which might be reviewed are defined in the initial study list prepared by the state. After an initial study a project is assigned one of three statuses - eligible for a categorical exclusion, requires a negative declaration, requires an environmental impact report. There is specific procedure for public review required for each of these environmental statuses. CEQA allows local agencies, within the basic parameters of the law, to assign responsibility fqr review among their own decision making bodies. The following procedures will be used for public input for each type of environmental review action in Burlingame. CateQorical Exemption The class of categorical exemption will be identified as a part of project analysis prior to Planning Commission action. The exemption w�ll be considered accepted when the Planning Commission acts on the project. If the project is appealed to or called up for review by the City Council, they shall be the final body to accept the categorical exemption. NeQative Declaration For a negative declaration, with or without mitigations, the following procedure will be followed: 1. The negative declaration will be prepared with and included as a part of the project submittal to the Planning Commission. Any mitigations required will be included as conditions of the project action. z 2. The negative declaration document will be posted in a place accessible to the public in city hall and the public notice sent to property owners within 300 feet or 500 feet as required by municipal code shall include the fact a negative declaration is required. Public notice shall include where further information on the negative declaration is available. 3. The public hearing before the Planning Commission shall include the negative declaration. The Commission's action on the project shall include acceptance of the negative declaration along with findings. If the �Planning Commission�s action on the negative declaration and project are not called up for review by or appealed to the City.- Council, the Planning Commission action on the negative declaration shall be considered the city�s final action on the negative declaration. 4. If a negative declaration and/or project are called up for review by or appealed to the City Council, the negative declaration shall be included as a part of the City Council�s public hearing on the project. Action on the project by the City Council would require acceptance of the negative declaration with findings. This action would be considered the city�s final action on the negative declaration. Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) An environmental impact report is the environmental document prepared when the initial study reveals that if the project is built as proposed there might be potential environmental impacts which cannot be reduced by mitigations to a level of effect acceptable to the community. A more extensive document is required for this including compilation of specific studies and topical .:� ,� _ 3 analyses as well as a detailed evaluation of alternatives including possible major changes to the proposed project. The procedure to be used for public review of an EIR shall be as follows: 1. The Draft EIR shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission for a public hearing addressing the completeness of the document and any additional issues which might have been identified during the preparation of the Draft EIR. This public hearing shall be held by the Planning Commission during the state mandated public review period for Draft EIR's. 2. The Final EIR and response to comments document�.prepared . from the written and oral comments received about the Draft EIR shall be submitted as a part of the project for Planning Commission review and action. The Final EIR shall be included in the Planning Commission�s public hearing on the project. 3. The Planning Commission shall accept the Final EIR with findings prior to action on the project. As appropriate, mitigations required in the EIR shall be included in the conditions on the project. Planning Commission action on the EIR shall be final unless the project is called up for review or appealed to the City Council, in which case Planning Commission action will be advisory. 4. If a project is called up by or appealed to the City Council, the Final EIR shall be a part of the public hearing on the project. The City Council must act on the Final EIR before acting on the project. The City Council's action on the Final EIR shall require findings. May 1, 1989 1 STATE OF CAUfORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WIl50N, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME P.O. BO% 944209 �ACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2090 16) 445-3531 To All Project Applicants ��C����� J�.,�'� � � 19g2 ;rT�NI�G pEp�.�� ,�:�n�iir`onmental F,iling+;Fees �" .. . _ ,. . March 6, 1991 In accordance with Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, effective January 1, 1991, persons or entities are required to pay an Environmental Filing Fee for projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that may have any adverse affect on wildlife resources. As defined in Section 711.2(a) of the Fish and Game Code: ". ..'wildlife' means and includes all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability ..��.". The filing fees are due and payable at the time a Notice of Approval or Determination is filed with the county clerk. With the exception of a documentary handling fee, counties are required to remit 100 percent of these fees to the Department of Fish and Game (Department). The Legislature, in adopting environmental filing fees, intended to extend the current Department user-based funding system by allocating a portion of the costs of wildlife protection and management to those who may consume wildlife resources through urbanization and development. These fees are not intended to reimburse costs specifically identifiable to individual projects, but rather to offset a relative portion of the cumulative effect of all projects. It is important to note, Section 711.4(c) of the Fish and Game Code and Section 21089 of the Public Resources Code, clearly states: ��. .. no project shall be operative, vested, or final until the filing fees required pursuant to Section 711.4 are paid. �� Fee exemptions are allowed for the following projects: 1. All projects statutorily exempt from the provisions of CEQA. 2. All projects categorically exempt by regulations of the Secretary for Resources from the requirement to prepare an environmental document. 3. Al1 projects found by the lead agency to be "de minimis" when a lead agency finds and certifies that, as a result of its environmental review, a project has no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources. .�:,� a,. ���: Negative Declaration ND-456P and all processing documentation enclosed. r: 7 � P F r' � � � I'�'� I �r 1\ .q' �9 , ;; 1 l I_) i - . � /� p � � G-� Tfl All Project Applicants -2- March 6, 1991 Environmental filing fees are required for projects as follows: 1. For projects not exempt from the fee and for which a Negative Declaration has been prepared, the fee is $1,250.00. 2. For projects not exempt from the fee and or which an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared, the fee is $850.00. In addition to the filing fee, county clerk's have been provided the authority to collect up to a$25.00 documentary handling fee. If you have any questions regarding how this fee requirement may impact your project, please contact your ].ocal lead agency or your nearest Department of Fish and Game, �nvironmental Services Office (see attached map). Sincerely, ��. x � � r����-�/ Pete Bontadelli Director Attachment ��P l�z.�� Q.� ��-C�"�xC.���J'Ce CITY HALL-SOI PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLING�+ME� CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-B625 May 19, 1992 City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Attention: Ralph Kirkup, Director of Public Works Negative Declaration, ND-456P for Washington Park Well and Storage Tanks at 1000 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California became final following the City Council meeting of May 18, 1992. The Council did not call this matter up for review and the negative declaration is considered approved by the city. A notice of determination will be filed with the county. ar aret Mon oe City Planner s/ Attachment: ND-456P Planning Commission Minutes, May 11, 1992 cc: William Roman, Stetson Engineers, Inc. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 May 11, 1992 8, 1992 Exhibit and Site Plans (both 8-1/2" x 11"); (2) that the temporary tent shall be removed by May 30, 1992 and the parking spaces shall be restored to their original use; (3) that while the tent is in place the parking lot at 1338/1340 Bayshore Highway shall be available for employees, maintaining a total of 41 spaces for employee use during that time at that location; (4) that while the tent is in place, valet parking shall occur in the surface parking lot in the northeast corner of the site in front of the parking garage; (5) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (6) that the site shall be inspected for removal of the tent in June, 1992; and (7) that a site inspection shall be made of available parking on the property during use of this tent. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR A RECREATION ROOM AT 1524 MEADOW LANE. ZONED R-1 Continued to the meeting of May 26, 1992. 12. LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1645 MCDONALD WAY ZONED R-1 Continued to the meeting of June 8, 1992. 13. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR NEW WELL AND STORAGE FACILITIES AT 1000 BURLINGAME AVENUE, WASHINGTON PARK, AND TO ABANDON TWO WELLS AT BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL, 400 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED LAND C. Jacobs, finding that on the basis of the initial study there is no evidence that this project would have a significant effect on the environment, and in fact in the event of an emergency would benefit the community, moved to accept Negative Declaration ND-456P, seconded by C. Ellis and approved unanimously on voice vote. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ., � CITY OF BURLINGAME NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND - 456P for Washington Park Well and Storage Tanks at 1000 Burlinaame Avenue, Burlinaame, California The City of Burlingame by MARGARET MONROE on May 4, 1992 , 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. Description of Project: The City of Burlingame proposes to develop a replacement well with storage tanks to irrigate Washington Park and Burlingame Iiigh School; and the well will provide an available supplemental water supply in the event of an emergency when the City's water supply from San Francisco Water Department could be shut down for an extended period of time. Two existing wells adjacent to Burlingame High School, currently used to irrigate the school grounds, would be abandoned with the development of the new well. These two existing wells, with a total capacity of 100 gallons per minute are 50 to 70 years old and have deteriorated well screens which impede the free inflow to the pumps. Present wells are located on Burlingame High School property and the new well will be located nearby at Washington Park on City of Burlingame property. The proposed 300 to 400 foot deep gravel packed well would yield about 150 gpm. The Washington Park irrigation system can be operated using 40 gpm of the well's 150 gpm capacity. The remaining 110 gpm capacity will be available for the high school irrigation system which requires 50 to 100 gpm. The new project would include a 400 foot test hole; electrical service and motor control center; 300-400 foot 30 inch well; well and booster pumps; emergency generator; above ground storage tanks; piping, valves and meters; and a building to secure and protect the equipment. The well water would have a high dissolved mineral content, suitable for irrigation, but would require disinfection to meet current safe drinking water standards. Disinfection for the water supplied during .an emergency will be provided by a temporary chlorine feeder. The Merced Formation is the principal aquifer available for the new well. The younger Colma Formation is thought to overlie the Merced and serves as a secondary aquifer source where the water table has not declined below it. Thickness of either formational unit is uncertain in this area. The local aquifer groundwater is recharged mainly from percolation of stream runoff in outcrop areas. (Refer to report by JWA consulting engineers, A Feasibility Study of the Washington Park Well, Phase l, City of Burlingame, September, 1991). a Reasons for Conclusion: The development of the new well to replace the abandoned wells will not have a significant impact on the environment. The environmental checklist studied the impacts on the earth, air, water, plant life, animal life, noise, light and glare, land use, natural resources, risk of upset, population, housing, transportation/circulation, public services, energy, utilities, human health, aesthetics, recreation, cultural resources, and findings of significance. Existing wells and surface irrigation systems currently use the same amount of water but from different sources. The school uses the wells to be abandoned for irrigation and the park uses the San Francisco water supply to irrigate. The use of the new wells at 150 gpm to replace existing wells and domestic water sources will only be a change in the source of the water and not a change in the amount of water used. The same amount of water will be applied on the surface to percolate into the aquifer. The new well maintenance of positive impact will provide an again improving continue to meet the new well. will improve available irrigation water for Washington Park and the hiqh school creating a on local recreational facilities. Also the well additional water supply for community emergencies public services for the city. The city will water conservation and landscaping guidelines with The development of the wells and its facilities is consistent with the General Plan and ecology of the area, and the surrounding park and hiqh school uses, therefore, it should not result in any adverse environmental impacts on adjacent sites. The project is appropriate for a developed park site. If designed to meet city, state, and county requirements as approved there is no substantial evidence that the project will have significant effect on the environment. �1 Gv�er'.� �l 6� �. Sign tu e of Pr cessing Official G� Z ' le at igned Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. Date posted• 7 / % � , Declaration of Postina I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on ���1-��1 � , 1992. Appealed: ( ) Yes ( ) No � AjMALFATTI, CITY CLERK,/C,iTY OF BURLINGAME ) ��� C Pf-,q� �� �ih�� �i � // F2�Nc�s�o S�N � 0 oa 0�,0 , , � P�_ ,�P P� � � y Q+r � 1 �h� 1 �1 1 �1 :1 m . ,1 � .- � l _C� y\�;�� �,,o"„o� � _ �,,,,.,�,�� F.PEEWAr pROJECT LOCATION � �\' \�� � �> � � - �\j \�l .ra �3 40� P>� ���---- '��° � . . . . \��� \V/. ,� �v o >�.L' `Fl � o`` h A �o.o �,10 �� (� .. `-t.0' /`P ' � % `V �(� f� ��( �/ �t1 � O !//� f ^ / Gr � � \r,s� /P� \ y ^ '� �. r a . � � S G ' -���9 ; . - c (v,.�P�?vPF� �r,� l Sb v�� .� "� ` �% � / � ,�•\2�� „O \. _�� f'P �' � W }i (a F� � � � �� �y, ��� � � � �� � � � '. BURLIN � �� � �°� �' ���'o/�ti. �� GAME HIGH SCHOOL'+�� � //��\ ,�;:� ,; �y �� l� \AI�E < < \�/ ' . 41����'�� ��� _ �/� " � % 4�E � ��\� ,� � ^ WASHINGTON PARK �Q .� r� o A�F \7 �\�� �,� r� ..,a �\ � ��`' � u�� .w . E ,y, " 4��. �f� /` \ � �/\ E" _`'Yo�q ��oi�� ,�tl��/! \� �/'�'� \ .;�C�y\ ���,� /v�����/ \ � / \ ^.p/� r �j�.' �s ��, �� J ,o / � �\ \ / `CD/� \�f�A�, u /� ���P (.p� •�� � -�. / '\ �� �� �./ � � 11-'�1LLu �d ��i� M r '/ � �.•�'"9��' � �p��' ��/ p,� / � � �� `�`i J1 \�\/ � � / �\ � �� � � ���� �//� �( � '_... ��^ / `�. LaY \�F� lP�ai � a)' � � < � ��.j/ \,�/ \ J � P >� / �� � �R� fot�J p �r ,°O�� � V � � o / \ ��� , � � � , �.� � �;�� � Q� � °' a' °I � =; ��s� � � %�, / � � < �- _ � ��.� l -�i� �r c Nlt' d � l . ��� � � �, � � \ \ � � �2�= � � j� � °�-, 3 � �� ' lIo //'' 0 \\�-,. � �,. ) r � ;�� -A� �� ✓I .::0 � �l . o� � i/��v �1�'�—>` '�-. ��``�`u�� 1�� � � \��l CITY OF BURLINGAME SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA REVISED: " I �" g' ���J � � GR�PM�G SGLC e 1!�.; ��9� �• �Y���� '< Z' � q f ��..�'ti. "_.arl '. X ^ ! � �?�'. * , �_- il �i . . „�''� ���, L ^ C�'+�.. # , = �. �. .�� � �?; � , � � £ � � "� ,�,_ �� "0'°�� �e - � '�;`.y - �v � r�!Y e if . � � ,� � ry � �k . � -r� 'r � � ` �?� ��.r �i � t .'� '. . - F ` �`Y� ����ll��� . . � � .. \` y � �a ' - � � ��.P � w�G � �,y.,.,, � M ` Z� i��' , � �' 4 �`ti t� k � � ' � � ` � � � �' > _�,; " �'' �F��� , ..�, �' '� -� � �� - , � ��� ,� � � , . ��` r t� •'�,,, �"'� ���� '� �• � L "� : A � E �;`' �` r� � ��,�- � `.�-��j � • 'i�' �¢',�`` - • - � �' � .�:-"'E` _ � -'.,� . .� ^� ` � � .� _ ' , - F � - - c �� � :i� + Ri `"`i",�,,,� -. �` �. t� � � (� � ¢�y, _ � � � � . '� i+; " � � � . ' O,g K A,�* � ?n a ,� �, ,�'��'� . , • _ � +�µ ,$� � '. .,� � �� � _. E�R F • ; �' ,"� a � ' . . � YE �� . % ! 4 .�' r - . . - ,� "y.?S+e` �;�r � ��, : * � I ` e � ` C ��� %'� ���� � �' - . � , �. . �l�t! �a'�� � � � ' ����� � � �Jld" :i � � ' � Af ��" '� �� ����,�� - ,'��'h'�`, � �'�, +,.,���1 � � ' � � � 4 ^��� �� 4 \\ � , -fi` !�� dt'" G '°` � �° ,� ♦�'�.'.� : g ��� � - � � 4�Dp - ..` n..,�� � � .�.�*� f � %,_. .. A � ; � ' � ' ` '� .� �.�`-`-ti.. - _ . ; --- z. n '� :f j F � .'SM� j , `�,z �a � � gvR��N� A �r F ,�^ _t � ' � � r - - •� , �' t� - -� ,� } /�11� qMg a � ► � : �� ., ��' � ,'�. �� �,* �, � , - � � ; �. �..5� H ' 3 . '�rp� � �� - � �'�!,9 tg ' " .' �•�i �''� .. d I�Q+O`, � �n ,,`�''�'.` � �," !� . ���. �� = t- � c D - a �s��� ',��'�'�� • �Gl' '!y� • � � � � [� �R� �� - . .. �., _ �p ��'`�+t+. -f� /,� �j� r � ,a -• M � _ � � _ .. :�• tw�v�f, ;c � ' . �, , �> �. p`Y Y ;:•ty a_� � e. �. *� - `' �c`. MD `I� ' •. i0i - � _ r � . .�� ` �. � ���� �k� �a.. .F� ''¢�� � D � �. ` # t , /` Y :�r�s'� 1J��� /c?y�i`` . ,- l _ W� �1{•�N� • '`.J� � a y.' f 4 H °� � �= r ��' "�� S /�! _ T -`� �~ �� ' •��. - 'y: �4✓� ':� `"A � � - � ,=i ` -� _ ��F pqRk � . �� '" � �." ��` '�i` ,' . _ . - v ��� ��� �+s `� � „'1� ; �. . - E'ej�7 0 � . •'-: {+ � y _ , - � `� r . u � �� . , . . �' 1 r� �t �l ..,�� . $ /�O�e rs - �. � '4Y „ � ..�, , �V �v �~��V'. _ `�,�t, �� � �' �. �� � ` � c:� \.� `' V�,�y �v�O r _�: � � " 1 /� ,. ` ME 4n ; .�.� �� ���� �� 'tiy� `� i � � Ry�s , �'n'�y a � . + '�. R �'�",� �, �� � i a —"�•E ' - '� y N - C: • , ` �� ; ' ,�¢ 4 � � �.. i�..� M-� �►=«� � �' ,,, �''� _ -. �- { 1 �• �� ,. � '. ' r . � ` ; ;. � ,;�� � 4 . .,.. + �.,� � �`'�'�3 ; � ~ ; #�� t . ,� a, ,.��, � �,.�;`� ,, • �o'�"� � 's , '�° 1T a `'�' ` �; '1� ;, . . � � �,.t-•,� ,'-5ir��,'",,,, � ,�y � ,'�' -� *� - rt�.., � a� �' �. '� ti .. � � � ',t � `� r � � . � '� � ;4.*w�+ - � `� ���' Ji� �,. � : 'p�� �� � ��" �. � � � - �� `w ��Y ��•A� �; _ �z i� ' �!�. �. '� � • �� � � ''�r�. . ' ' �_ v � �"'��.�Q � � I ` , •.+I�. �j� .� r i_ '-[�+r i �' r '% � � � � i� �,"'i, r i� / ` � �``'(,:, ,l � � 't J�.� � � � �,y1• ' •*'► �t,:i � �i -,^� • t��,r, � ' ..., r.` � k� �� i y�� �` Lr �� r „�A� 'r _ �rf .y.,�. ..1.� . . � �- _ � � ' _ �.. -"' ��� 1 : ��'` �t � ���' � `-'-��' ,•p Yt Y�,� ., „ � � ' �„ � "g � � � - � �����,�.� 4 �,�� ! + �.^ti ` � , . s �,s, • �k . �-_ _ � 3��� , � +< .. . ~+� _. A�.�.�i�� �°-�it....,� ---'r �i "yi : �Appendix V . ' Environmenial Impact C�ecklist 1. f@,dh. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth mnditions or changes in geoiogic substructures? b. Disrvptions, displac�ents, compaction or overcovering of the soII? c Qiange in topography or ground s�ufaoe relief features? ' d The destruction, mvaing or modificatlon of any unique geologic or physical features? e. My inaease in wind or wata �osion of soiLs, atha on or off the site? f. Qianges in deposition or aosion of beach sands, or changes in sltation, deposition or aosion that may modify the channel of a nva or stream or the bed of the ooean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. F_xposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similaz haTards? 2�. Will the proposal reszilt in: a. Substantial air emissions or detaioration of ambient air quality? b. The aeation of obje��onable odo:s? c Altaation of air movement, moishue, or temperature, or any change in climate, atha locally or regionally? 3. Wate►. Will the pzoposal result in: a. Qianges in cvrrents, or the course or directlon of water mov�mts, in atha marine or fresh waters? b. Qtanges in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the ratc and amount of surface runoff? c Altc�aaons to the murse or Ilow of Elood waters? d. �ange in the amount of surfaoe watez in any water body? e. D�schazge into surface waten, or in any alterahon of surface water quality, induding but not liauted to tempc3ature, dissolved oxygen or hubidiEy? 4. Plent Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Qian qe in the divenity of spedes, or numbcr of any spedes of plants Gnduding trees, shrubs, gtiss, Qops, �nd aquatic planLs)? b. Roduction of the numbc3s of any unique, rare, or endangered sprnes of plants? e Introduciion of new spedes of plants into an arn, or in a barriQ to the normal replenishmait of existlng spedes? d. Rc+duction in aQrage of any agricvlturai Qop? 5. Anlmal Llfe. Will the proposal result in: a. Qian�e in the diversity of spedes, or numbers of spede9 of anuna7s (birds, land animals inciuding repriles, fish and sheIIfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbas of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animaLs? c[ntroduction of new spedes of animaLs into an area, or result in a barric3 to the atigation or mov��t of animals? 6. �{olse. Will the proposal restilt in: a. Inaeases in odsting noise levels? b. Exposure of people to sevae noise levels? 7. L1aht and G1are. Will the proposa] produce new light or glaze? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantlal alteration of the presmt or planned land �se of an azea? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Inarase in the rate of use of any natural rgouroes7 b. Substantial depledon of any nonraiewable nahual reso�ce? 10. Rlsk of Uoset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explos�on or the release of harardous substances including. but not limited to, oil, pestiddes, chemicals or radiatlon) in the event of an acndent or upset mnditions? b. Po$ible interfaence with an emagaicy response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Will the proposal alta the location, distribuGon, density, or growth rate of the h�an populadon of an azea. 12. Housina. Will the proposal aEfect e�dsting housing, or Qeate a d�and for addibona! housing? Loca! wafer supply projett construction Yes Maybe No �q. � � � � � � � � " `1� � � � ��� � �� � � J �\ / �� � � � Page A-19 . � 13. Trana�ortatloNClrculatlon. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantlal additional vehiailar movement? b. Effects on e�dsting parldng fadlities, or d�and for new paridng? c Substantial impact upon e�dsang transportation systems? d. Alt�ations to present pettems of dzculation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to wateborne, rail or air traffic? f. InQease in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Publlc Servlces. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or tesult in a need for new or altered govemmental servioes m any a the followmg azeas: a. Fire protection? b. Pdice protecrion? c. Sc.hooLs? d Pazks or otha re�eational fadlities? e. Maintenance of public fadlities, induding roads? f. Other gov�nmental servica? 15. Eneray. Will the propaseal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial inQease in demand upon adsang sour�s of aiergy, or require development of new sources of energy� 16. Utllltle�. Will the propoe�al result in a need for new systems, or substandal alterations to the following utilities? a. Power or natural gas? b. Communicatlons systems? c Watcr? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water dtainagc? f. Solid waste and dispor�al? 17. Human Heelth. Will the proposal result in: a. Geation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Expoeure of people to potentlal health hazards? 18. Aesthetles. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view opa� ro the public, or will the propasai result in the aeahon of an aesthetlnlly oHensve site operi to public view? 19. Recreatlon. Will the proposal result in an impad upon the quality or quantity of existing reQeational oppornuuties? 20. Culturel Resources. a. Will the propasal renilt in the alteration of or the destnxtion of a prehistoric or hi9tonc azchaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in advese physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistonc or histonc building, struchue or object? c Does the proposal have the potenbal to cause a physical change chat would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal rgtrid e�dsting religjous or saaed us� within che potential impact area? � :�.: .. �• �• •i i : � : a. Does the pro'ect have the potential to degr-ade the qualitv of the environment, substantially reduoe the habitat of a 6sh or wil�e spedes, muse a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustauiing Ievels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal mmmunitv, reduoe the number or restrid che ran�{e oE a raze or �dangered plant or animal or eLminate important exampC� of the major periods of California hisiory or prehistory? b. Dues the project have the potentlal ro achieve short-tam, to the disadvantage ofof long-tam, a�vizonmaital goals? (A short-term impact on the mvircmmait is one that occvrs in a relatively bnef, definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endute well into the future) Yes Maybe No � �--�- � � � —lS� �r i . � �� � � � 1, ;�� �=-�. -� ?< � � �3C. , � / � � c Does the project have impacts that are individuallv limited, but cvmulatively wnsiderable? (A project mav � imvacc on two or more sepazare resouroes whae the impact on each resouroe is relatively small, but where the S effect of the tolal of those impacts on the �vironmait is 9giuficant. ✓�_ d. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial advase efEects on human beings, either � a�y ot �,a��y� Page A-20 LornI water supply �roject construction . � '. , � CITY OF BIIRLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BIIRLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME PLANNING CO1�iI88ION announces the following public hearing on Mondav, the iith day of May, 1992, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 1000 BIIRLINGAME AVENIIE APN: 029-141-030 029-141-010 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A NEW WELL AT 1000 BIIRLINGAME AVENOE, WASHINGTON PARR, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED LAND; AND ABANDON AELLS AT 400 CAROLAN AVENIIE, BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL, ZONED IINCLASSIFIED LAND. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER Mav 1, 1992 � STETSON ENGINEERS INC. _ WATER RESOURCES CONSULTAN75 WII.LWM ROMAN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER 2171 E. FRANCISCO BLVD. SUITE K SAN RAFAEL, CALIF. 949p7 (415) 457-0701 �/-f-X �[/ / 5 ) � s % - / 6 3.�'