The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1301-1311 Burlingame Avenue - Environmental Document! County of San Mateo Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Warren Slocum 555 County Center Redwood City� CA, 94063 Finalization 2010062558 11 /5/10 11:16 am 021 36 Item Title ------------------------------ 1 EIRN Fish & Game: Neg Declaration Document ID Amount ------------------------------ DOC# 2010-000193 2060.25 Time Recorded 11:16 am ------------------------------ Total 2060.25 Payment Type Amount ------------------------------ Check tendered 2060.25 # 2490 Amount Due 0.00 THANK YOU PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR RECORDS TO: � County Clerk's Office I�UV t� 6 2010 County of San Mateo 555 County Center Road, First Flo �R¢=� �� +nry�lerk Redwood Ciry, California 94063-09 —""�'"�" �� NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ❑ Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Burlingame P.0 Box 3044 Community Development Dept. �r�i�R� Planning Division Sacramento, California 95812-3044 �LE�'��,�E REc� s�nu��o�«,�n:cu�01 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 SUB7ECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ND-557-P — 1301-1311 Burlinqame Avenue — Proposed Lot Split of Parcel into Parcel A and Parcel B Project Title State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to Clearinghouse) William Meeker (650� 558-7250 Contact Person Area Code/Telephone 1301-1311 Burlinqame Avenue, City of Burlinqame, San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The proposal is for a lot split of one lot (APN: 029-202-060 & 029-202-070) into two lots, Parcel A and Parcel B. A title report revealed that the parcel had never been formally subdivided. The Tentative Parcel Map, date stamped August 17, 2010, shows how the existing 100.06 foot wide lot would be subdivided into two lots. Parcel A would have 48.81 feet of street frontage on Burlingame Avenue and 92 feet of street frontage on Park Road, and would measure 4,516 square feet in area (lot has irregular front and rear property line dimensions). Parcel B would have 51.25 feet of street frontage on Burlingame Avenue and would measure 4,710 square feet in area. Burlingame Municipat Code Section 25.36.075 (Minimum lot size and street frontage.) requires that each lot in this district shall have an area of at least 5,000 square feet and a street frontage of at least 50 feet. Since each lot is proposed to have an area less than 5,000 square feet (4,516 square feet and 4,710 square feet proposed), a request for Variance for lot size is required. In addition, since Parcel A has a frontage of less than 50 feet (48.81 feet proposed), a request for Variance for lot frontage is required. This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Aaencx, has approved the above-described project on November 1, 2G10 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project [❑will � will not] have a significant efFect on the environment. Z. ❑ 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 Burlinaame, Planninq Department, 501 Primrose Road, Burlinqame CA 94010. 3, Mitigation measures [❑were � were notJ made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [❑was �was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings (Y�j 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 Burlinqame, Planninq Department, 501 Primrose Road, Burlinqame CA 94010. ` , IV �L� -� � '� November 5 2010 William Meeker, Community Development Director Date �*'��}� C� ITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF BURLINGAME lrc�� '�'' BURL�NGAME O � ianning Division City Hall — 501 Primrose Road t;. y, (�'T �� Burlingame, California 94010-3997 �.�!� -�,�% �(� Q � �50) 558-7250 �/� � �� : (650} 696-3790 �q� 0 �4G NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Interested Individuals From: City of Burlinqame County Clerk of San Mateo Communitv Development Department Planninq Division 501 Primrose Road Burlinqame, CA 94010 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (ND-557-P) Project Title: 1301-1311 Burlingame Avenue, Lot Split of Parcel into Parcel A and Parcel B Project Location: 1301-1311 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The project includes a lot split and Variances for lot size and lot frontage to split one lot into two lots, referred to as Parcel A and Parcel B in the Tentative Parcel Map. The existing 100.06 foot wide lot would be subdivided into two lots. Parcel A would have 48.81 feet of street frontage on Burlingame Avenue and 92 feet of street frontage on Park Road, and would measure 4,516 square feet in area (lot has irregular front and rear property line dimensions). Parcel B would have 51.25 feet of street frontage on Burlingame Avenue and would measure 4,710 square feet in area. Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.36.075 (Minimum lot size and street frontage.) requires that each lot in this district shall have an area of at least 5,000 square feet and a street frontage of at least 50 feet. Since each lot is proposed to have an area less than 5,000 square feet (4,516 square feet and 4,710 square feet proposed), a request for Variance for lot size is required. In addition, since Parcel A has a frontage of less than 50 feet (48.81 feet proposed), a request for Variance for lot frontage is required. Variances may be granted, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 25.54 (variance findings). In accordance with Section 150?2(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 Rcad, B�rlingame, California, 94010. As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on October 1, 2010. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on October 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 D�vision. 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 Parcel Map for lot split and Variances for lot size and lot frontage at 1301-1311 Burlingame Avenue, and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been tentatively scheduled for October 25, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: October 1, 2010 INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST � � � � �: 7 Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: C-1, Subarea A 1301-1311 Burlingame Avenue, Lot Split of Parcel into Parcel A and Parcel B City of Burlingame, Community Development Department - Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 William Meeker, Community Development Director (650) 558-7250 1301-1311 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 Avtar Johal 1300 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Commercial Uses: Shopping and Service APN: 029-202-060 & 029-202-070 8. Description of the Project: The proposal is for a lot split of one lot (APN: 029-202-060 & 029-202-070) into two lots, Parcel A and Parcel B. A title report revealed that the parcel had never been formally subdivided. The applicant is now proposing to split the subject lot into two lots, referred to as Parcel A and Parcel B in the Tentative Parcel Map. The Tentative Parcel Map, date stamped August 17, 2010, shows how the existing 100.06 foot wide lot would be subdivided into two lots. Parcel A would have 48.81 feet of street frontage on Burlingame Avenue and 92 feet of street frontage on Park Road, and would measure 4,516 square feet in area (lot has irregular front and rear property line dimensions). Parcel B would have 51.25 feet of street frontage on Burlingame Avenue and would measure 4,710 square feet in area. Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.36.075 (Minimum lotsize and streetfrontage.) requires thateach lot in this district shall have an area of at least 5,000 square feet and a street frontage of at least 50 feet. Since each lot is proposed to have an area less than 5,000 square feet (4,516 square feet and 4,710 square feet proposed), a request for Variance for lot size is required. In his letter dated August 17, 2010, the applicant notes that "although Parcel B is slightly less tran the minimum lot size, it has more than adequate frontage to support two storefronts. The two stores present a typical fa�ade to the public." In addition, since Parcel A has a frontage of less than 50 feet (48.81 feet proposed), a requestforVariance for lot frontage is required. This project is subject to CEQA because variances for lot size and lot frontage are required as part of the lot split. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The existing lot is located in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, within the City of Burlingame and measures 9,226 square feet in area. The lot is surrounded by one and iwo-story commercial buiidings and a public parking lot. The subject !ot currently contains two commercial buildings. The building at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, referred to as Parcel A in the Tentative Parcel Map, is occupied by Apple (retail store). The building at 1309-1311 Burlingame Avenue, referred to as Parcel B, is occupied by Teacake Bake Shop (food establishment) and Gymboree (retail store). 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: There are no permits required from other public agencies. A building permit will be required from the Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division for any future improvements within the buildings on the lots. 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 Recreation Materials Hydrology & Water Noise Agricultural Resources Quality Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE 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 impacY' 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 rec�uired, 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 ;s required. �` -.. - „ �' `��>, ;: :. �� ( r'' ( �'� : � ',� � / �r � , Wil{iam Meeker, Community 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,E,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, 5,6 7 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-B 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? � 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 1,14 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 welis 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 1,14 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 1,14 X site or area, including through the alteration of the 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 exceed 1,14 X the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,4,14 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as 8 X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Fiood 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 1,8 X loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the faifure of a levee or darn? 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,9 X concentrations? -5- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation , Incorporated e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 1,9 X number of people? 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in 2,14 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 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 1,14, X feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous 15 intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 14,16, X 17 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 substantia! or adverse effect on any riparian 1,11 X habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regionai plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wiidlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federaliy 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, hydroloaical 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 vrildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? � Issues and S�pporting Information Sources sou�ces Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2 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 Sectior. 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 v�✓orking in the project area? f} For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 1 X wculd 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? -7- 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? 1,17 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 1,14 X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 1,14 X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing faci!ities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c} Require or result in the construction of new storm 1,14 X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 1,14 X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,14 X treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projecYs projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? � Issues and Supporting Information Sources sou�ces Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 1,14 X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 1,14 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 1,4 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 ihe 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? 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? � Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 1301-1391 Burlingame Avenue 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 Potentia/ 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 GU/DELINES, Assessing the Air Quality lmpacts of Projects and Plans, December, 1995 10 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 1997 11 Map of Areas of Special 8iological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game 12 Sfate 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 Tentative Parcel Map, date stamped August 17, 2010 15 City of Burlingame, Public Works Department — Engineering Division Memo dated August 14, 2010 16 City of Burlingame, Chief Building Official's Memo dated August 4, 2010 17 City of Burlingame, Fire Marshal's Memo dated August 2, 2010 -11- Initial Study Summary 1301-1311 Burlingame Avenue Land Use and Planning Summary: No /mpacf. The subject lot currently contains two commercial buildings. The building at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, referred to as Parcel A in the Tentative Parcel Map, is occupied by Apple (retail store). The building at 1309-1311 Burlingame Avenue, referred to as Parcel B, is occupied by Teacake Bake Shop (food establishment) and Gymboree (retail store). The uses in these buildings are in conformance with the zoning district. The existing building on Parcel A is completely independent of the building on Parcel B. The property owner recently listed Parcel B for sale and was under the assumption that this Parcel was separate from Parcel A since it had a separate assessor's parcel number. However, a title report revealed that the two parcels had never been formally subdivided. The applicant is now proposing to split the subject lot into two lots, referred to as Parcel A and Parcel B in the Tentative Parcel Map. The Tentative Parcel Map, date stamped August 17, 2010, shows how the existing 100.06 foot wide lot would be subdivided into two lots. Parcel A would have 48.81 feet of street frontage on Burlingame Avenue and 92 feet of street frontage on Park Road, and would measure 4,516 square feet in area (lot has irregular front and rear property line dimensions). Parcel B would have 51.25 feet of street frontage on Burlingame Avenue and would measure 4,710 square feet in area. Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.36.075 (Minimum lot size and street frontage.) requires that each lot in this district shall have an area of at least 5,000 square feet and a street frontage of at least 50 feet. Since each lot is proposed to have an area less than 5,000 square feet (4,516 square feet and 4,710 square feet proposed), a request for Variance for lot size is required. In addition, since Parcel A has a frontage of less than 50 feet (48.81 feet proposed), a request for Variance for lot frontage is required. Variances may be granted, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 25.54 (variance findings). The Tentative Parcel Map shows the footprints of the existing buildings on each proposed Parcel. With this application, there are no improvements or changes to the uses proposed in the existing commercial buildings. Since the existing building on Parcel A is completely independent oithe building on Parcel B, there are no issues with buildings extending across property lines. The Zoning Code allows commercial uses, including retail and food establishments, and there is not change to the existing uses proposed. The existing retail stores and food establishment is consistent with the General Plan designation, which is Commercial Sales — Shopping and Service. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. Approval of the Parcel Map results in two lots that are similar in size, shape and configuration to other developed lots within the vicinity. Since there are no changes proposed to the existing commercial buildings and uses on the proposed lots, the proposed lot split will not divide an established community and will be in keeping with the commercial nature of the surrounding neighborhood. There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in effect within 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 Impacf. This site and the surrounding area are planned for pedestrian oriented commercial uses. The proposed lot split 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 Element. The lot split and variances wili not displace any existing housing units or residents. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on the displacement of existing homes. -12- Initial Study Summary 1301-1311 Burlingame Avenue Geologic Summary: No lmpact. The site is located in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The lot is surrounded by one and two-story commercial buildings and a public parking lot. The subject lot currently contains two commercial buildings. 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. 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. Since commercial buildings exist on the property and there are no changes proposed to the buildings, no impact would result. Water Summary: No Impacf. This project includes a lot split of one lot into two parcels with no changes to the existing commercial buildings. The subject property is not adjacent to a waterway. The project site is located in Flood Zone B, which is outside the 100-year flood zone. The site is tied into an existing 6-inch water main and existing storm water collection distribution lines and there is adequate capacity in the system. No impacts would result from the approval of the variances for the lot split. Air Quality Summary: No Impact. Since the application for a lot split involves no construction or alterations to the existing commercial buildings on the parcels, the approval of the variances for the lot split will not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally and therefore have no negative impact on air quality. Transportation/Circulation Summary: No Impact. The subject lot is located at the corner of Burlingame Avenue and Park Road. Burlingame Avenue is a collector street that provides access to EI Camino Real and California Drive, both regional arterials. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems in the City have had the capacity to accommodate the existing commercial uses. The proposed lot split would not conflict with any plans supporting alternative transportation. Since there is not construction or alteration to the existing commercial building and uses, there will be no impacts on transportation/circulation. Biological Resources Summary: No Impact. The project site exists within an existing downtown commercial area developed with one and finro-story commercial buildings. The entire site is devoid of any sensitive biological resources. There are no known rare, endangered, or sensitive habitats that exist either on-site or in proximir� to the project. There are no wetlands occurring onsite, nor are there any resident migratory fish or wildlife species. Therefore, there are no impacts to biological resources with the proposed lot split. Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: No Impact. There are no known mineral resources located within the boundaries of the project site, which currently contains two commercial buildings. All gas and electric services are in place for service to the existing commercial buildings. Therefore, no impacts to energy and mineral resources will occur with the proposed lot split. Hazards Summary: No lmpact. Since commercial buildings exist on the property and there are no alterations proposed to the buildings, the proposed lot split and variances will not create a significant hazard to the public or result in the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The underlying project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites and does 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 with the proposed lot split. The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. -13- Initial Study Summary 1301-1311 Burlingame Avenue The proposed variances for the lot split will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In addition, the proposed lot split 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 lot split is not associated with potential impacts associated with hazardous materials. Noise Summary: No Impact. The project site is located in a downtown commercial area, with existing commercial uses surrounding this site. No noise impacts will result from the approval of the lot split and variances since there is no construction or alterations proposed to the existing commercial buildings on the parcels. Public Services Summary: No Impact. The proposed lot split will not have an impact on the provisions of public services, since adequately sized existing public facilities are in place to service the existing commercial buildings. Since all existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the existing uses, there is no impact on public services. Utilities and Service Systems Summary: No Impact. There are existing 6-inch sewer lines on Burlingame Avenue and Park Road that have the capacity to serve the existing commercial buildings. The proposed lot split will not have an impact on the existing service systems and the existing sewer lines have the capacity to accommodate the existing commercial buildings. Aesthetics Summary: No Impacf. The subject lot currently contains two commercial buildings. The building at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, referred to as Parcel A in the Tentative Parcel Map, is occupied by Apple (retail store). The building at 1309-1311 Burlingame Avenue, referred to as Parcel B, is occupied by Teacake Bake Shop (food establishment) and Gymboree (retai� store). The existing building on Parcel A is completely independent of the building on Parcel B. Since there are no alterations proposed to the existing commercial buildings, the proposed lot split and variances will not have an impact on aesthetics. Cultural Resources Summary: No Impact. There are no known prehistoric or historic archeological sites or cultural resources at the location of the proposed lot split. There are no potential impacts related to unknown cultural resources since there is no construction proposed with the application for a lot split and variances. Recreation Summary: No Impact. The proposed lot split and variances will have no impacts to local and regional recreation facilities. The proposed lot split does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities forthe City of Burlingame. The site involved in this project is not presently zoned or used for recreational uses. -14-