Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 Vista Lane - Environmental DocumentNOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ❑ Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Burlingame P.0 Box 3044 Community Development Dept. Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, TfL U �%111 ® County Clerk's Office �pkr County of San Mateo SAN 555 County Center Road, First Floor Redwood City, California 94063-0977 FEB 2 2' 201t7 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of ti >9 ri�A"K* ND-553-P — 12 Vista Lane — Proposed Lot Split of Parcel into Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 "� 0PMQLFAK Project Title William Meeker (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 12 Vista Lane, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The project includes a lot split, Variance for lot frontage and the potential for future development of two single-family dwellings. The Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map, date stamped August 10, 2009, shows how the existing lot would be subdivided into two lots. The existing 110 foot wide lot would be divided in half to create two 55 foot wide lots, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Parcel 1 would have 55 feet of street frontage and would measure 10,537 SF in area. Parcel 2 would also have 55 feet of street frontage and would measure 10,675 SF in area. Code Section 25.28.050 (h) requires that all lands annexed after May 31, 1960, and classified for residential uses shall have a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF (10,537 SF and 10,675 SF proposed for Parcels 1 and 2, respectively). In addition, Code Section 25.28.050 (a) (3) requires that lots of 10,000 SF or more shall have an average width of not less than 50 feet (55 feet proposed for each lot) and shall have frontage of not less than 60 feet (55 feet proposed for each lot). Since each lot is proposed to have less than 60 feet of street frontage, a Variance for lot frontage is required. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above -described project on February 16, 2010 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project [❑will ® will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: City of Burlingame, Planning Department, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame CA 94010. 3. Mitigation measures [®were ® were not] made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [❑was ®was not] adopted for this project. S. Findings (® were ❑ were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Burlingame, Planning Department, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA William Meeker, Community Development Director Date NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ❑ Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Burlingame P.0 Box 3044 Community Development Dept. Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 ® County Clerk's Office County of San Mateo FILED aD OF 555 County Center Road First Floor oSANM TE OUWY.0", i 5AN M�TEC CCUNri, CALK. Redwood City, California 94063-0977 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the PuAgRe%grce�1Code. ND-553-P — 12 Vista Lane — Project Title William Meeker (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 12 Vista Lane, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The project includes a lot split, Variance for lot frontage and the potential for future development of two single-family dwellings. The Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map, date stamped August 10, 2009, shows how the existing lot would be subdivided into two lots. The existing 110 foot wide lot would be divided in half to create two 55 foot wide lots, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Parcel 1 would have 55 feet of street frontage and would measure 10,537 SF in area. Parcel 2 would also have 55 feet of street frontage and would measure 10,675 SF in area. Code Section 25.28.050 (h) requires that all lands annexed after May 31, 1960, and classified for residential uses shall have a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF (10,537 SF and 10,675 SF proposed for Parcels 1 and 2, respectively). In addition, Code Section 25.28.050 (a) (3) requires that lots of 10,000 SF or more shall have an average width of not less than 50 feet (55 feet proposed for each lot) and shall have frontage of not less than 60 feet (55 feet proposed for each lot). Since each lot is proposed to have less than 60 feet of street frontage, a Variance for lot frontage is required. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above -described project on February 16, 2010 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project [❑will ® will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: Citv of Burlingame. Planning Department, 501 Primrose Road. Burlingame CA 94010. 3. Mitigation measures [®were ® were not] made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [❑was ®was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings (® were ❑ were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Burlingame, Planning Department, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010, William Meeker, Community Development Director Date CITY OF BURLINGAME C`� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BU'RLINGAME Planning Division City Hall — Primrose Road Burlingame, Californiali 94010-3997 4,� PH: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Interested Individuals From: City of Burlingame County Clerk of San Mateo Community Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (ND-553-P) Project Title: 12 Vista Lane, Lot Split of Parcel into Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 Project Location: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The project includes a lot split, Variance for lot frontage and the potential for future development of two single-family dwellings. The Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map, date stamped August 10, 2009, shows how the existing lot would be subdivided into two lots. The existing 110 foot wide lot would be divided in half to create two 55 foot wide lots, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Parcel 1 would have 55 feet of street frontage and would measure 10,537 SF in area. Parcel 2 would also have 55 feet of street frontage and would measure 10,675 SF in area. Code Section 25.28.050 (h) requires that all lands annexed after May 31, 1960, and classified for residential uses shall have a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF (10,537 SF and 10,675 SF proposed for Parcels 1 and 2, respectively). In addition, Code Section 25.28.050 (a) (3) requires that lots of 10,000 SF or more shall have an average width of not less than 50 feet (55 feet proposed for each lot) and shall have frontage of not less than 60 feet (55 feet proposed for each lot). Since each lot is proposed to have less than 60 feet of street frontage, a Variance for lot frontage is required. Code Section 25.28.050 (e) notes that Variances may be granted, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 25.54 (variance findings). In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby given of the City's intent to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A negative declaration is prepared for a project when the initial study has identified no potentially significant effect on the environment, and there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of an Initial Study, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has prepared a Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010. As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on December 22, 2009. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on January 25, 2010. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination set forth in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing to: City of Burlingame Community Development Department — Planning Division. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period described above. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed Tentative and Final Parcel Map for lot split of Parcel A and Variance for lot frontage at 12 Vista Lane, and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been tentatively scheduled for January 25, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: December 22, 2009 INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project Title: 12 Vista Lane, Lot Split of Parcel to create two parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Community Development Department - Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: William Meeker, Community Development Director (650) 558-7250 4. Project Location: 12 Vista Lane Burlingame, California 94010 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Denham LLC 851 Burlway Road #710 Burlingame, CA 94010 6. General Plan Designation: Low -Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1 APN: 027-093-300 8. Description of the Project: The proposal is for a lot split of Parcel A (APN 027-093-300) into two lots, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. The existing 110 foot wide lot would be divided in half to create two 55 foot wide lots, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Parcel 1 would have 55 feet of street frontage and would measure 10,537 SF in area. Parcel 2 would also have 55 feet of street frontage and would measure 10,675 SF in area. There is a minor difference in lot sizes because the property line along Vista Lane is slightly curved. Since each lot is proposed to have less than 60 feet of street frontage (zoning code requires 60 feet of street frontage for lots over 10,000 square feet), a Variance for lot frontage is required. The subject lot was part of a larger lot which extended from Vista Lane to Adeline Drive and had 110 feet of street frontage on each street. The property was in the jurisdiction of San Mateo County until 1979, when it was annexed to the City of Burlingame. In August 2005, the original lot which extended from Vista Lane to Adeline Drive, was subdivided into two lots: one lot having frontage on Adeline Drive (110- foot street frontage) and the other lot on Vista Lane (110-foot street frontage). This parcel map was approved by City Council on August 1, 2005. The applicant is now proposing to subdivide the upper portion of the lot (with frontage on Vista Lane) into two lots (refer to the staff report for the tentative and final parcel map prepared by Public Works, Engineering Division). This project is subject to CEQA because a variance for lot frontage is required as part of the lot split. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The existing lot is located in the hills of Burlingame, within the City of Burlingame and measures 21,212 SF in area. The lot is surrounded on three sides by properties located in San Mateo County (unincorporated land). Based on an average of the property corners, the existing lot slopes downward approximately 34.92 feet from front to rear (18% slope). At the front of the property, the lot has a cross -slope of approximately 8 feet. There are no improvements on the lot other than an existing water tank. When future development is proposed, the top of the water tank would be demolished and the portion of the tank below grade would be filled with soil. The lot contains one protected sized oak tree (10", 12" and 14" multi -trunk). The possible footprint of future development on the lot shows that the house could be designed around the protected tree. An arborist's report and tree protection measures would be required at the time future development on this lot is proposed. The remainder of the lot contains smaller, non -protected size trees and shrubs. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: There are no permits required from other public agencies. Future development on the lots will be subject to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit, and will require approval by the Planning Commission. A building permit will be required from the Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division for any future development on the lots. An encroachment permit will be required from the County of San Mateo to tie into the existing water main (maintained by the City of Burlingame) located along Vista Lane, which is in county jurisdiction. 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 Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation Hydrology & Water Quality Noise Agricultural Resources Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE X DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a " potentially significant impact' or " potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ,9 , RWl - /zzzU Willia Meeke , Co muni Development Director Date Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 1,2 X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan 2 X or natural community conservation plan? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, 1,3 X either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 3 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 3 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial 5,6,7 X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated 5,6,7 X on the most 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? 5,6,7 X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including 5,6,7 X liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 6 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 5 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, 5,67 X or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 5,6 X 1-13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the 5 X use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? in Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,15 X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 1 X interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be 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 1,15 X site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 1,15, X site or area, including through the alteration of the 17 course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,15, X exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm 17 water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,4,15, X 17 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as 8 X mapped on 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 8 X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 1 X loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,6 X 5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 1,9 X applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 1,9 X existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of 1,9 X any criteria 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)? -5- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,9 X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 1,9 X number of people? 6. TRANS PORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in 1,14 X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of 1,14 X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including 1,13 X either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design 14 X feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 14 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,14 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1,4 X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 1,11 X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian 1,11 X habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 1,11 X protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 1,11 X native or resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? M Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2,16 X protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 1,11 X Conservation 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 1 X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important 1 X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,10 X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,2,12 X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 1,12 X acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 12 X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 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 1, 12, X or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 13 two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 1 X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with 1,10 X an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 1 X loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? dA Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels 1,2 X in excess of 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 1,2 X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise 1 X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2 X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 1,2 X or, where 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 1 X would the 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 government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1 X b) Police protection? 1 X c) Schools? 1 X d) Parks? 1 X e) Other public facilities? 1 X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1,19 X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 1,15,1 X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of 9 existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm 1,15, X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing 19 facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 1,15 X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? in Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,15, X treatment provider which serves or may serve the 19 project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 1,15 X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 1,15 X regulations 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, 1 X but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1,2,14 X quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare 1 X which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Create a substantial adverse change in the 1,14 X significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,14 X significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1,14 X resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 1,14 X outside of formal cemeteries? 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing 1,14 X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or 1,14 X require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? in Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or 1 X Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1 X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment 1 X which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 1 X quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 1 X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will 1 X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? -10- Initial Study Summary 12 Vista Lane 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2009 edition. 3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 2002. 4 2000 Census 5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1981. 6 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. 7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. 8 Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, September 16, 1981 9 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December, 1995 10 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 1997 11 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game 12 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998 13 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, December, 1994 14 Project plans date stamped August 10, 2009 15 City of Burlingame, Engineering Memo dated September 10, 2009 16 City of Burlingame, Arborist Memo dated September 3, 2009 17 City of Burlingame, NPDES Memo dated August 17, 2009 -11- Initial Study Summary 12 Vista Lane Land Use and Planning Summary: No Impact. The project includes a lot split, variance for lot frontage and the potential for future development of two single-family dwellings. The Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map, date stamped August 10, 2009, shows how the existing lot would be subdivided into two lots. The existing 110 foot wide lot would be divided in half to create two 55 foot wide lots, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Parcel 1 would have 55 feet of street frontage and would measure 10,537 SF in area. Parcel 2 would also have 55 feet of street frontage and would measure 10,675 SF in area. There is a minor difference in lot sizes because the property line along Vista Lane is slightly curved. Code Section 25.28.050 (h) requires that all lands annexed after May 31, 1960, and classified for residential uses shall have a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF (10,537 SF and 10,675 SF proposed for Parcels 1 and 2, respectively). In addition, Code Section 25.28.050 (a) (3) requires that lots of 10,000 SF or more shall have an average width of not less than 50 feet (55 feet proposed for each lot) and shall have street frontage of not less than 60 feet (55 feet proposed for each lot). Since each lot is proposed to have less than 60 feet of street frontage, a Variance for lot frontage is required. Code Section 25.28.050 (e) notes that Variances may be granted, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 25.54 (variance findings). The subject lot was part of a larger lot which extended from Vista Lane to Adeline Drive and had 110 feet of street frontage on each street. The property was in the jurisdiction of San Mateo County until 1979, when it was annexed to the City of Burlingame. In August 2005, the original lot which extended from Vista Lane to Adeline Drive, was subdivided into two lots: one lot having frontage on Adeline Drive (110 feet street frontage) and the other lot on Vista Lane (110 feet street frontage). This parcel map was approved by City Council on August 1, 2005. The existing lot located in the City of Burlingame measures 21,212 SF in area and is surrounded on three sides by single family dwellings located in San Mateo County (unincorporated land). There are no improvements on the lot other than an existing water tank. When future development is proposed, the top of the water tank would be demolished and the portion of the tank below grade would be filled with soil. Any future development on these lots would require submittal of an application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit. The City of Burlingame's Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit process will provide the opportunity to further evaluate the mass and bulk of the single family dwellings and the potential obstruction of the existing distant views from nearby properties. The Zoning Code allows one unit per lot in this area. The General Plan would allow a density of 8 units to the acre and the application would allow for a density of four units per acre. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties within the general vicinity because it will be subject to the R-1 zoning district regulations and the Design Review provisions of the code. Approval of the Parcel Map results in two lots that are similar in size, shape and configuration to other developed lots within the vicinity, most of which are under the jurisdiction of the County of San Mateo and subject to less rigorous development standards. Creation of the two lots and future development of two single family dwellings will not divide an established community and will be in keeping with the residential nature of the surrounding neighborhood. There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in effectwithin the project area. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans and therefore have no impact. Population and Housing Summary: No Impact. This site and the surrounding area are planned for low - density residential uses. The proposed lot split and future development of two single family dwellings will be reviewed for compliance 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. The project is consistent with the City's Housing -12- Initial Study Summary 12 Vista Lane Element. The lot split and variance and future construction of two single family dwellings will not displace any existing housing units or residents. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on the displacement of existing homes. Geologic Summary: No Impact. The site is located in the hills of Burlingame in a semi -urban setting, with most of the lots in vicinity are 10,000 SF in area or greater. The subject property has a gentle slope at the front of the lot, then slopes downward more steadily towards the rear. The existing lot slopes downward approximately 34.92 feet from front to rear (18% slope). At the front of the property, the lot has a cross -slope of approximately 8 feet. The site is approximately 3 miles northwest of the San Andreas Fault, and 17 miles northwest of the Hayward Fault, but is not within the Alquist-Priolo zone. There are no known faults on the site. Because the project site is in proximity to several faults, it is likely that the site will be subject to seismic shaking and other earthquake - induced effects. During a major earthquake on a segment of one of the nearby faults, strong shaking is expected to occur at the project site. The USGS maps designate the soil type as br, which is bedrock that varies from well -consolidated sediments to deeply weathered igneous intrusive and extrusive rocks. Under seismic conditions this site is categorized in a C zone, and would experience very strong shaking. However, most Burlingame soils are reasonably stable. Because of the strong subsurface materials and the absence of subsurface flows, it is unlikely that liquefaction of the foundation soils would occur. There will be little seismic exposure to people and equipment, since future development of the single family dwellings will comply with current California Building Code seismic standards. The project will be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability. Water Summary: Less Than Significant. This project includes a lot split and an in -fill development project with the potential for future construction of two new single family dwellings on a currently vacant parcel. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway. The project site is located in Flood Zone C, which is outside the 100-year flood zone. No impacts would result from the approval of the variance for the lot split. However, less than significant air quality impacts would result from future construction of two single family dwellings. Storm drainage is normally required to be drained to the street frontage, which in this case would be Vista Lane located within San Mateo County. However in this case, that is not an appropriate solution since Vista Lane is not located with the City of Burlingame limits. Therefore, new 6-inch storm drain lines would be brought in from the lot to the rear of the site by way of a private sanitary storm drain easement across the rear of Parcel 2 and an existing easement on the property to the rear. The storm drain line would drain to Adeline Drive, in the City of Burlingame. Water for future development would be provided by an existing 8-inch water line along Vista Lane, which is maintained by the City of Burlingame. The existing water main has adequate capacity to serve the two additional single family dwellings. There will be an increase to the amount of impervious surface area as a result of the future construction of two single family dwellings, driveways, patios and walkways. This added impervious surface will cause an increase in storm water runoff, but is considered insignificant given the size of the lot and the remaining pervious areas. However, with compliance with City Engineering standards regarding site drainage, impacts will be less than significant. The project will need to have an erosion and sedimentation control plan that describes best management practices (BMPs) that will be implemented for storm water management and erosion control. This plan will need to be show and describe what type of erosion control measures will be administered to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering storm drain systems and how these measures will be maintained. These measures may include, but not be limited to, the following; sediment basins or traps, berms, silt fences, straw -13- Initial Study Summary 12 Vista Lane bale, storm drain inlet protection soil blankets, and covers for soil stock piles. These measures need to be installed to stabilize denuded areas and to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established. Tsunamis are large sea waves generated by submarine earthquakes or similar large-scale, short -duration phenomena, such as volcanic eruptions, that can cause considerable damage to low-lying coastal areas. Because the project site is located more than 300 feet above mean sea level and not along an exterior coast, it would not be subject to tsunami inundation. Therefore, no impact would result. Since the site is less than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the state -mandated water conservation program; although water conservation measures as required by the City will be met. Air Quality Summary: Less Than Significant. No impacts would result from the approval of the variance for the lot split. However, less than significant air quality impacts would result during both the construction phase and ultimate build out of the single-family dwellings. Construction emissions would occur temporarily, while operational emissions would continue for the life of the project. Construction impacts would include dust generated during site preparation and other construction activities, exhaust emissions from construction -related equipment and vehicles. Construction -related activities are anticipated to occur over a period of eight to twelve months, and would not be expected to generate substantial amounts of dust. Additionally, relatively minor emissions would be generated from paints and other architectural coatings utilized for construction of the single family dwellings. Post -construction, the primary source of emissions would be generated by project -related traffic. The subject property 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. Demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. There are no known objectionable odors associated with this type of use that could affect the nearby working/living populations. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Transportation/Circulation Summary: No Impact. The site is on Vista Lane, a cul-de-sac street off Hillside Drive. Hillside Drive is a collector street that provides access to El Camino Real and Skyline Boulevard, both regional arterials. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any temporary incremental increase to traffic or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities as well as from the development of two single family homes. The proposed project for a lot split and variance will result in the eventual construction of two additional single- family dwellings. The proposed lot split will result in lots of similar size, shape and configuration to other lots within the vicinity that are in the surrounding area, most of which are under the jurisdiction of the County of San Mateo. The additional lot will not create significant additional traffic on Vista Lane and the property owner has indicated his intention to provide a wider paved area along the property to provide an improved path of travel in front of his properties. Additionally, the City of Burlingame's Design Review process will provide the opportunity to further evaluate vehicular ingress and egress on the resultant lots to further minimize any potential impacts upon traffic circulation in the neighborhood. This project would not conflict with any plans supporting alternative transportation. No significant transportation/circulation impacts are anticipated; therefore no mitigation measures are required. Biological Resources Summary: No Impact. The project site exists within an existing urban context, in an area developed with single-family dwellings. The undeveloped portion of the project site is devoid of any sensitive biological resources and the developed portion of the property has minimal planted vegetation, with the exception of one protected sized oak tree (10", 12", 14" multi -trunk tree) in the middle of Parcel 1. The possible WE Initial Study Summary 12 Vista Lane footprint of a single family dwelling shows that the house could be designed around the protected tree. An arborist's report and tree protection measures would be required at the time future development on this lot is proposed. Any animals that inhabit the site would be typical of an urban environment. There are no known rare, endangered, or sensitive habitats that exist either on -site or in proximity to the project. There are no wetlands occurring onsite, nor are there any resident migratory fish or wildlife species. Future development of the two single family dwellings would be subject to the City of Burlingame's design review process and will be required to provide landscaping throughout the site. Therefore, no impacts to biological resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: No Impact. There are no known mineral resources located within the boundaries of the project site, which has been previously developed with a below grade water tank. All gas and electric services are in place for service to the single family dwellings in this area, with capacity to handle the future development of two additional single family dwellings. It is likely that there will be only an incremental increase to the use of energy because the two new residences will comply with current Title 24 requirements, which requires energy efficient construction. Therefore, no significant impacts to energy and mineral resources will occur with project implementation, and no mitigation measures are required. Hazards Summary: No Impact. The proposed lot split and variance and the future development of two single- family dwellings will not create a significant hazard to the public or result in the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. NPDES Best Management Practices are required to ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways. The underlying project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites and will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The site is not located within an airport land use plan and will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The proposed residential variance for the lot split will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The two residential parcels will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires and is in an urbanized area. Therefore, the proposed project is not associated with potential impacts associated with hazardous materials and no mitigation measures are required. Noise Summary: No Impact. The project site is located in a low -density residential area, with residential land uses surrounding the project site in all directions. No noise impacts will result from the approval of the lot split and variance, however, future development would include construction of two additional single-family residences. The primary concern is the potential for the temporary noise impacts during the construction phase of the project that will potentially impact the nearby residences. However, due to the temporary nature of the construction, noise impacts will be intermittent and will not be long term. Contractors will be required to comply with the construction hours established in the Burlingame 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 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. No significant traffic will be generated by the project which could result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Therefore, no significant project -level noise impacts will occur with project implementation, and no mitigation measures are required. With compliance to the Burlingame Municipal Code, construction - phase noise impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. -15- Initial Study Summary 12 Vista Lane Public Services Summary: No Impact. The proposed lot split and future development of two single family dwellings is not expected to have a significant impact on the provisions of other public services, since this is an urbanized area with adequately sized existing public facilities in place. Since all existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the proposed use, no mitigation measures are required. Utilities and Service Systems Summary: No Impact. Other than an existing underground water tank, which will be filled in for future development of the sites, the subject property is vacant and there are no utilities on -site. There is an existing 8-inch sewer in Adeline Drive that serves the existing residences on the block. This line has the capacity to accommodate the new single family dwellings to be built in the future. New 4-inch sewer laterals would be brought in from the lot to the rear of the site by way of private sanitary sewer easements across the rear of Parcel 2 and an existing easement on the property to the rear. To prevent flooding a backflow prevention device will be required to be installed as per Ordinance Number 1710, effective June 18, 2003. The existing lot slopes downward approximately 34.92 feet from front to rear (18% slope). At the front of the property, the lot has a cross -slope of approximately 8 feet. Storm drainage is normally required to be drained to the street frontage, which in this case would be Vista Lane located within San Mateo County. However in this case, that is not an appropriate solution since Vista Lane is not located with the City of Burlingame limits. Therefore, new 6-inch storm drain lines would be brought in from the lot to the rear of the site by way of a private sanitary storm drain easement across the rear of Parcel 2 and an existing easement on the property to the rear. Drainage will be directed through the storm drain lines to Adeline Drive, within the City of Burlingame. The current solid waste service provider is Allied Waste, which sends solid waste collected in Burlingame to Ox Mountain Landfill. Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractor will be required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream by transporting the construction waste separately. 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 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. Since the proposed lot split will not have an impact on the existing service systems and the existing sewer and storm drain lines have the capacity to accommodate two new single family dwellings, there are no mitigation measures required. Aesthetics Summary: No Impact. The project site exists within a previously developed residential setting and is surrounded by low -density residential uses. The Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map shows possible footprints on each of the proposed two new lots. As shown, the footprints would be in compliance with setbacks, lot coverage and driveway slope. The possible footprints shown are for the purpose of evaluating whether or not the proposed new lots can be developed. Approval of the Variance for lot frontage does not approve the possible footprints shown, since any development on the lots will be subject to the Design Review and Hillside Area Construction permit process. Approval of the Parcel Map results in two lots that are similar in size, shape and configuration to other developed lots within the vicinity, most of which are under the jurisdiction of the County of San Mateo and subject to less rigorous development standards. -16- Initial Study Summary 12 Vista Lane Any future development on these lots would require submittal of an application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit. The City of Burlingame's Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit process will provide the opportunity to further evaluate the mass and bulk of the single family dwellings and obstruction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Development of the two lots, instead of one larger lot, will result in a lesser structural mass upon the subject property since each lot will be developed independently with two free-standing structures subject to development standards applicable to each of the two lots. This process will ensure that any potential impacts upon adjacent development can be minimized to the extent feasible. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Cultural Resources Summary: No Impact. There are no known prehistoric or historic archeological sites at the location of the proposed lot split. There are no known cultural resources in the project area, and given its history of urban development, it is unlikely that any cultural resources would be encountered during site development. Potential impacts related to unknown cultural resources may be encountered during the construction phase of the project, but these will be less than significant with implementation of standards conditions of project approval that require all construction and/or excavation activities to cease immediately if archeological resources, prehistoric or historic are discovered during any construction or excavation activities. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Recreation Summary: No Impact. For the purposes of this analysis, the physical development of the project area would include a lot split and variance for lot frontage. Given the urban context, and because the proposed new use and intensity is consistent with the General Plan, no impacts to local and regional recreation facilities are anticipated. 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. There are adequate recreational facilities within the City of Burlingame to serve the future residents of the two new single family homes which can be developed on the site. The site involved in this project is not presently zoned or used for recreational uses. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Sr!