HomeMy WebLinkAbout601 Ansel Avenue - Environmental Document� � � �
� 10TC1'�'IGE OF DETERMIINATION
TO: ❑ Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
, Sacramento, California 95814
� County Clerk
FROM: CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
���J� in� rHF oFFicc� o� i�+��
LJ COUAITV CLEi�K RECORd� C}�:-
CAN 4/t?Ti_Ci ^.�i _Ip,;ry, r:A:.(F.
County of San Mateo ��� � � ��9�,
401 Marshall, Sixth Floor ,W �h �
Redwood City, California 94063 �"`s�`� :�v i�'�,Cl rk
gy L? . �� �
. DEPU C �-( �
SUB�ECT. Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance wirth ��tion 21152 ofth� Public
Resources Code.
25-unit Apar�ment Building located at 601 Ansel Avenue
ect Title
Margaret Monroe (415) 696-7250
State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Area Code/Telephone/Extension
(If submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person
601 Ansel Avenue, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County
Project Location (include County)
Project Description: Approval of a Negative Declaration and a tentative and final parcel to•�'mbin� ��
lots for the development of a three-story 25-unit apartment building located at 601 Ansel Aven�u�e.�
This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above-described project on
January 13, 1997 and January 27, 1997 (tentative and final parcel map) 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. ❑ P.n Em�ir�nm�nta? Impact ReF�� was rrepa::,d f�r this praject pursuant to the provisions
of CEQA.
� A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures (� were O were not) made a condition of the 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 above-described Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of
project approval is available to the General Public at the City of Burlingame, Planning Department,
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010.
Monroe, City Planner
Date
Date received for filin� at OPR: Not applicable nod.form
California Department of Fish and Game
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMP'rION
De Minimis Impact �nding
Project Title/Location (include county):
Three-story, 25-unit Apartment Building located at 601 Ansel Avenue
Project Description:
Approval of a Negative Declaration and a Tentative and Final Parcel Map to combine lots
for the development of a three-story 25-unit apartment building located at 601 Ansel
Avenue, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County.
Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary):
The City of Burlingame finds that on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received
there is no substantial evidence the proposed project will have a significant effect on
wildlife or its habitat. The attached evaluation provides additional documentation and
support for this iinding.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not
individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section
711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
�
Chief Pl ning Official
Title: City Planner
Lead Agency: Ci� of Burlingame
�. - -�r ..r ..
CITY OF BURLINGAME
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
File No. _ND-483P, 601 Ansel Avenue
The City of Burlingame by Mar,�;aret Monroe on November 24, 1996, completed a review of
the proposed project and determined that:
(XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment
(XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
.P�r ject Descri�tion: The project is a new three story (35' tall), 25-unit apartment building with
parking for 38 cars at grade, at 601 Ansel Avenue (the corner of Ansel and Floribunda), zoned
R-3. The site now consists of three lots with a total of ten dwelling units. The applicant intends
to merge the three lots to create a 21,416 SF lot. All the existing structures will be demolished
to accommodate the new building. The proposed units are all one bedroom, and a total of 38
parking spaces are required. The project proposes 36 standard parking stalls and two handicap
stalls, which meets the parking requirements. The project has landscaped front, exterior side and
rear setback areas; the interior side setback is paved and some of it is used for parking access.
Reasons for Conclusion: This project is in-fill development and is consistent with the General
Plan and zoning. The project is a redevelopment of three lots which are currently developed with
multi-family residential uses. The proposed 25-unit apartment development meets all R-3 (multi-
family residential) zoning regulations. Adjacent land uses will not be adversely effected by this
proposal since they too are developed in multiple family uses and the proposed project meets all
the building envelope standards of the applicable zone. No new utilities, transportation methods
or corridors will be needed since the site is adequately served now. No new recreational or
governmental facilities will need to be extended or created to support the proposed development
because the project proposes to add only 15 units in an area already developed fully served with
facilities appropriately sized. Refemng to the initial study for all other facts supporting iindings,
it is found that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
Signature of Processing Official
b �
Title
��►, ��
Date Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final.
Date posted: � Z',Z r� �'
Negative Decluratio�i
601 A�rsel Ave�u�e
Declaration of Posting
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted
a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the
Council Chambers.
Executed at Burlingame, California on
Ap ealed: ( ) Yes ( ) No
� �
;"
�� �' �- � -' �� .C. �i�c �4. '/E-}- ' i Y
_ �,
, 1996.
p /t
t�-j l Cl c'_K
�� 7UDITH A MALFATTI, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME
1.
2.
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
601 ANSEL AVENUE
Project Title: 25-Unit Apartment Building
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Margaret Monroe, City Planner
(415)696-7250
4. Project Location: Parcel with an address of 601 Ansel Avenue, Burlingame, California
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: N.N. Gabbay A.I.A. Architects
19 South B Street, Suite 7
San Mateo, CA 94401
6. General Plan Designation: Medium-high Density Residential
7. Zoning: R-3 APN: 029-100-180, 190 & 200
8. Description of the Project: The project is a new three story (35' tall), 25-unit apartment
building with parking for 38 cars at grade, at 601 Ansel Avenue, zoned R-3. The site now
consists of three lots with a total of ten dwelling units. The applicant intends to merge the
three lots to create a 21,416 SF lot. The existing structures will have to be demolished to
accommodate the new building. The proposed units are all one bedroom, and a total of 38
parking spaces are required. The project proposes 36 standard stalls and two handicap
stalls, which meets the parking requirements. The project has landscaped front, exterior
side and rear setback areas; the interior side setback is paved and some of it is used for
parking access.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting:
The site is surrounded by other multi-family residential buildings. The surrounding area is
planned for medium-high and high density residential uses, and is zoned R-3.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: A permit will be required from the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District for demolition of the existing structures.
ENVIRONIVIENTAL 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 thf�
toiiowin a es.
Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation 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 X
a NEGATIVE 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 the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effectls) 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, if the effect is a"Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." 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,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1)
have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2► have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project.
� � � v( l�
Mar aret onroe, City Planner Date
z
•Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than ruo
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoningl 1,2 X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the projectl 1 X
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 1 X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land 1 X
uses)1
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or 3 X
minority community)1
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projectionsl 3 X
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or 1,3 X
major infrastructurel
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing7 3 X
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupturel 5,7 X
b) Seismic ground shaking? 5,7 X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 6,7 X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard7 1 X
e) Landslides or mudflowsl 6 X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
from excavation, grading or fill7 1,7 X
g) Subsidence of the landl 1,6 X
h) Expansive soils? 6,7 X
1) Unique geologic or physical featuresl 5,9 X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoffl 12 X
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as floodingl 12 X
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen 1 X
or turbidityl
d} Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
bodyl 1 X
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? 1 X
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of 1 X
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capabilityl
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater7 1 X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality7 1 X
I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies7 1 X
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? 1 X
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 1 X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climatel 1 X
d) Create objectionable odorsl 1 X
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 1 X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. 1 X
farm equipment)1
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses7 8 X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site7 8 X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists7 8 X
�Issues and Supporting Information SOUI"C0S Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1,8 X
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impactsl 1 X
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals 1 X
or birds)1
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 1 X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)l 1 X
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? 1 X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 1 X
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans7 1 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
mannerl 1 X
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region ar5d 1 X
the residents of the Statel
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, 1,8 X
chemicals or radiation►7
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? 11 X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazardl 1 X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazardsl 1 X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass of treesl 1 X
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise Ievelsl 1 X
b1 Exposure of people to severe noise levelsl 1 X
�Issues and Supporting Information Sources I so�«es I Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than I No
Significant Impact
Impact
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection7 1,1 1 X
b) Police protection7 1 X
c) Schoolsl 1 X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roadsl 1 X
e) Other governmental services7 1 X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 1,8 X
b) Communications systemsl 1,8 X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? 1,8 X
d) Sewer or septic tanks and water supplyl 1 X
e) Storm water drainage7 1 X
f) Solid waste disposall 1,8 X
g) Local or regional water suppliesl 1,8 X
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 1 X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect7 8 X
c) Create light or glare? 8 X
d) Block views from adjacent development7 1,8 X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resourcesl 1,8 X
b) Disturb archaeological resources7 1,8 X
c) Affect historical resources7 1,8 X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values7 1,9 X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact areal 1,8 X
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilitiesl 1,8 X
b) Affect existing recreational opportunitiesl 1,8 X
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a 1 X
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 the potential to achieve short-term, 1 X
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals7
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerablel ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a � X
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either 1 X
directly or indirectly?
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING SUMMARY: The proposed 25-unit apartment building is
consistent with the medium-high density residential land use designation of the General Plan.
That designation allows construction of between 21 and 50 dwelling units per acre. The 25-unit
apartment building on a 0.5 acre site results in a density of 50 dwelling units per acre, which
complies with this designation. The R-3 zone district permits apartment buildings. The project
will have to meet the requirements of the R-3 zone district for height, setbacks, lot coverage and
parking.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING SUMMARY: This site and the surrounding area are planned for
medium-high and high density uses. The proposed residential development conforms to the City
of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to
the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element. The
proposed 25-unit apartment building will create more housing by replacing the existing 10 units
which are on the site now.
3. GEOLOGIC SUMMARY: The site is flat and located in an urban setting which has been
developed with apartments for about sixty years. There will be less seismic exposure than
present, since the new building will be built to current standards.
4. WATER SUMMARY: This is a residential in-fill development project which is not located near
or adjacent to waterways. The site is tied into existing water main and storm water collection
distribution lines with adequate capacity in the system. All of the surface water will be required
to have the correct site drainage to the site. This project is subject to the state-mandated water
r�
eonservation program. A complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with
landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application.
5. AIR QUALITY SUMMARY: This is a 25-unit apartment buiiding replacing a combined total of
10 units currently on the site. The change in emissions generated from all development in
Burlingame is insignificant. The site is within easy walking distance of County-wide bus and rail
service. These parcels are zoned for residential apartment and condominium uses and the
proposed 25 unit (net of 15 units) project will not create any deterioration in the air quality or
climate, locally or regionally.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION SUMMARY: This project will not create a substantial
increase in the traffic generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems
have the capacity to accommodate any additional traffic or trip generation produced by this
apartment project. On-site parking requirements are met.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SUMMARY: This apartment project is replacing structures of similar
intensity and will not alter any existing animal habitats in the area. There are no record of rare or
endangered plant or animal species for this developed urban site. No native plant life exists on
site. Any indigenous plan species located on this property have been introduced by previous
uses. This proposal will be required to meet the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance
passed by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department. New trees
required by the Parks Director will not alter the diversity or number of species of plant life in the
area. There is no farmland in Burlingame.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES SUMMARY: All gas and electric services are in place
with capacity to handle the addition of this development to the City of Burlingame. The
incremental use of energy is insignificant; the new units will comply with Title 24 requirements,
while the units removed were built before these requirements.
9. HAZARDS SUMMARY: This project has been proposed within all applicable zoning regulations.
This project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not
interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to
implement. There are no known health hazards on the site. The Uniform Building and Fire Codes
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.
10. NOISE SUMMARY: These lots have been developed for many years with multiple family uses.
The new proposal will not increase the existing ambient noise levels because it is replacing
structures of the same use and zoning intensity with compliance to current construction
standards. All construction must abide by the construction hours established by the municipal
code.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES SUMMARY: All existing public and governmental services in the area have
capacities which can accommodate the addition of the proposed apartment project.
s
.12. I�TILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SUMMARY: All new utility connections to serve the site
and which are affected by the development will be installed to meet current code standards and
diameter; sewer laterals will be checked and replaced if necessary. Abandoned utilities and
hookups will be removed.
13. AESTHETICS SUMMARY: The proposed apartment project is replacing currently developed
lots with similar intensity of use. In this particular location the land is flat and the area fully
developed; no distant views or vistas are present. By complying with the same requirements as
applied to other structures in the area this apartment building has been designed in a manner that
is consistent with the size and mass of the area. These lots have been developed for many years
with multi-family residential uses in separate structures. The new project will be developed as a
single building and will have a third floor where the existing structures are two-story. The
existing building to the north of the site is a three-story condominium, and the building to the
west of the site is a four-story apartment. More than half of the buildings across Ansel and
Floribunda from the site have three-stories, and the rest are two-story buildings. There will be no
significant increase in light and glare on site from residential uses, as the proposed glazing is in
similar proportion as other buildings in the area. All parking lot lights, if needed, will require use
of shielded lighting fixtures.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES SUMMARY: The sites involved in this project have been developed
in residential uses for many years prior to this proposal. The project will not include extensive
grading or digging. Any archeological or historic, cultural, or ethnic sites which may have been in
or near these locations were disturbed or destroyed by previous development prior to this
proposal. Should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work will be halted
until they are fully investigated.
15. RECREATION SUMMARY: The proposed apartment project does not replace or destroy any
existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational
opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The sites involved in this project are not zoned or used
for recreational uses.
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. The project is subject to the state-mandated wat�r conservation program. A complete Irrigation Water
Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application.
2. This proposal is required to meet the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance passed by the City of
Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department.
3. All construction must abide by the construction hours established by the municipal code.
4. All new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development will be installed to
meet current code standards and diameter; sewer laterals will be checked and replaced if necessary.
Abandoned utilities and hookups will be removed.
5. Should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work will be halted until they are fully
investigated.
9
, . , .
A � � `
�i. �he project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 The City of Bur/ingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
2 City of Burlingame, Municipa/ Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 1995 edition.
3 - City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 1994.
4 1990 Census
5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, Revised
1981.
6 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County,
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 November 14, 1996, Preliminary Plan of the Site.
9 Engineering Memo dated November 14, 1996.
10 Chief Building Inspector Memo dated November 12, 1996. ,
11 Fire Department Memo dated November 12, 1996 regarding sprinklers and fire alarm system.
12 Parks Department Memo dated November 20, 1996. -
13 Map of Approximafe Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood
Insurance Maps, September 16, 1981
601 ANSEL.IS
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
w
rn �a
z �►
� J �
� j �
}- m Z
� O Z
� 4
U
.. �