HomeMy WebLinkAbout1537 Drake Avenue Lot 9 - CEQA DocumentADDENDUM 3 TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
July 9, 2007
1537 DRAKE AVENUE, LOTS 9 AND 10
REVISED PROJECT — CHANGE IN BUILDING DESIGNS AND ON-SITE UTILITIES
A. INTRODUCTION
This Addendum for Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with Section 15164 of
the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), which permits a
lead agency (the City of Burlingame) to prepare an Addendum to the previously prepared Mitigated Negative
Declaration if some changes or additions to that Mitigated Negative Declaration are necessary, but none of
the changes are sufficiently substantial to warrant preparation of a new (or subsequent) Mitigated Negative
Declaration pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
As approved by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this Addendum may be included in, or attached to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, but it need not be circulated for public review.
B. SUMMARY
On May 27, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration with a mitigation
monitoring plan included as a part of the conditions of approval for the re-emergence and development of
three lots at 1537 Drake Avenue, Lot 9, 10 and 11, zoned R-1. The planning application was for a
Conditional Use Permit for three re-emerging lots, Design Review for three new houses (one on each lot) and
Special Permits for an attached garage for Lots 9 and 11 at 1537 Drake Avenue. Of major concern on this
site was a grove of Redwood trees determined to be significant. The Negative Declaration prepared forthis
project was based on the premise that the tree protection measures required in the environmental document
and implemented through the conditions of approval would be adhered to throughout the project from
demolition of the main structures on the site to five years of tree maintenance following occupancy of the site,
thus reducing the impacts of development on the significant groves of trees to a level acceptable to the
community.
A demolition permit for the existing house and accessory structures was issued on November 12, 2003.
Demolition of all existing structures on the site was completed by the end of November, 2003. On November
25, 2003, the contractor began grading on Lot 9 at the location of the significant stands of Redwood trees.
The grading was based on a set of foundation plans which had not been reviewed or approved by the
Building or Planning Departments. Based on the Planning Commission approval, no grading should have
occurred in the area being excavated since the conditions of approval required that a root location exploration
be completed and a pier and grade-beam foundation be designed to avoid the major roots identified, and
then a pier and grade-beam foundation be hand dug under the continuous on-site supervision of a licensed
arborist. There was no root location identification, no notification to any arborist and no was arborist on site
during the grading excavation. At that time, a stop work order which applied to the entire site (Lots 9, 10 and
11) was issued by the City. The project was placed on the December 8, 2003, Planning Commission
calendar for review of the project.
At the December 8, 2003, meeting the Commission continued the item until the root damage had been
properly investigated and the foundation type for the houses on the lots (9 and 10) which could affect the
redwood grove had been developed and the conditions of approval revised accordingly (December 8, 2003
P.C. Minutes). At that meeting the Commission also requested several other items to be completed by the
property owner including: investigation of the root damage in the excavated area and mapping of the
determination of the approximate location of tree roots, foundation type and location of protective fencing. An
independent arborist, chosen by the City and paid for by the property owner, began working with the City
Arborist to assist him in overseeing the root investigation as well as evaluating the property owner's arborist's
reports and compliance with them during construction.
ADDENDUM 3 TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
July 9, 2007
1537 Drake Avenue, Lots 9 and 10
Page 2
All three houses were originally approved within one set of conditions which assumed, as proposed by the
developer, that all three houses would be built simultaneously. The property owner wished to begin
construction of the house on Lot 11 while the foundation design based on the root investigation continued for
the houses on Lots 9 and 10. In order to go ahead on Lot 11, the Conditional Use Permit, which contained
single set of intertwined conditions for all three lots, had to be amended so that the conditions of approval
were separated, one set of conditions for each lot. An application for an Amendment to the original
Conditional Use Permit for emerging lots in order to separate and amend conditions of approval for Lots 9
and 10 was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on March 29, 2004 (March 29, 2004 P.C.
Minutes). The Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council. At their meeting of May 3,
2004, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision of the conditions of approval for Lots 9,10
and 11 (May 3, 2004 C.C. Minutes).
Construction of the house on Lot 11 was completed in June of 2005. The protective tree fencing, mulching
and irrigation have been adequately maintained from June, 2004 to July, 2007, and the trees have been
periodically checked by the City Arborist for their health. The applicant now is requesting review of the new
single family dwelling proposed on Lots 9 and 10.
The Addendum for the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the revised projects proposed at
1537 Drake Avenue, Lots 9 and 10, Burlingame. The Addendum only addresses Lots 9 and 10 since
construction on Lot 11 was completed in June of 2005.
C. IMPACTS TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, UTILITIES AND
SERVICE SYSTEMS AND AESTHETICS
Lot 9:
The applicant has made several changes to the project proposed on Lot 9 to mitigate any impacts to the
existing Redwood tree grove. To minimize impacts to the tree roots, the applicant is proposing to use a pier
and grade beam foundation near the Redwood tree grove and a footing foundation for the rest of the house.
Based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the pier locations for the pier and
grade beam foundation will be determined. The property owner will be required to submit a detailed
foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City Arborist to establish the
bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation and have it approved prior to the issuance of a building permit
for construction on the site. With this foundation system, the piers will be set in the ground and the beam will
be above grade. As a result, this foundation system raised the house by 4'-4" from what was previously
proposed. Special Permits are required for building height (30'-8" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum
allowed) and declining height envelope (7 SF, 0'-6" x 14'-0" along the right side of the house extends beyond
the declining height envelope).
The finished floor of the attached garage was only raised by approximately 10 inches to minimize the amount
of fill above existing grade. The new driveway and walkway would be constructed using interlocking pavers
set in sand, a sub base and mirafi geotextile between the existing grade and sub base. In a letter dated
October 19, 2006, Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., investigated the location of the proposed driveway and
walkway and concluded that a 7-inch cut could be done without encountering large roots. He further notes
that a little deeper could be done near the existing sidewalk where the driveway is to start. This would allow
for a gradual rise up to the garage.
The applicant submitted a Landscape Plan and Irrigation Plan, sheets L1.0 and L1.1, respectively,
documenting that the six existing significant Redwood trees on this lot will remain after construction. With the
six existing Redwood trees, the site is in compliance with the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection
Ordinance (six existing trees to remain where a minimum of three 24" box landscape trees are required). In
ADDENDUM 3 TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
July 9, 2007
1537 Drake Avenue, Lots 9 and 10
Page 3
addition to the existing trees, 14 new trees will be added on the lot to screen the two-story house. The
following species are proposed on Lot 9: Tasmanian Tree Fern (7 —15 gallon), Yew Pine (4 —15 gallon),
Citrus (2 —15 gallon), and Japanese Maple (1-24" box-size). The applicant is also proposing to plant a pear
tree in the planter strip in the public right-of-way in front of Lot 9. The City Arborist and project arborist have
reviewed and approved the proposed Landscape Plan (memo from City Arborist, dated April 13, 2007, and
letter from Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated February 8, 2007).
Since the last review of this project in 2004, a new 8-inch sewer line and 6-inch water line were installed in the
street along this block of Drake Avenue. The new lines greatly improve sewer service and help prevent
sewage back-up problems in the area. The applicant prepared a Utility Plan. Trenching forwater, sewer and
drainage lines would be located along the left side of Lot 9(away from the Redwood tree grove). Gas, cable
TV, telephone and electrical lines would be located at the rear of the site. The City Arborist reviewed and
approved the proposed Utility Plan. In a memo dated October 19, 2006, Mayne Tree Expert Company
reviewed the proposed trenching locations for the utility lines and concluded that there will be little or no
impact to the Redwood trees.
The applicant also submitted an Irrigation Plan. Trenching forthe irrigation lines would be located awayfrom
the Redwood tree grove, along the left side of Lot 9. The proposed irrigation system consists of %2-inch
dripline tubing at grade. The City Arborist reviewed and approved the proposed Irrigation Plan.
Lot 10:
The applicant has made several changes to the project proposed on Lot 10 to mitigate any impacts to the
existing Redwood tree grove. To minimize any impacts to the tree roots, the applicant is proposing to use a
pier and grade beam foundation for the entire house (see sheets S.1 and D.2). The pier locations for the pier
and grade beam foundation will be based on root locations determined by hand digging on the site. The
property ownerwill be required to submit a detailed foundation report and design for approval by the Building
Department and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation and have it
approved prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site. As a result, this foundation
system raised the house by 2'-9" from what was previously proposed. The roof pitch for the main roof of the
house was decreased from 10:12 to 9:12 to mitigate the increase in height. However, the house now
exceeds the maximum height limit by 1'-0" and requires a Special Permit (31'-0" proposed where 30'-0" is
allowed). Furthermore, a Special Permit is also required for declining height along the left side of the house
(54 SF, 2'-3" x 24'-0" along the left side of the house extends beyond the declining height envelope).
The applicant prepared a Utility Plan. Trenching for water, sewer and drainage lines would be located along
the right side of Lot 10 (away from the Redwood tree grove). Gas, cable TV, telephone and electrical lines
would be located at the rear of the site. The City Arborist reviewed and approved the proposed Utility Plan.
In a memo dated October 19, 2006, Mayne Tree Expert Company reviewed the proposed trenching locations
for the utility lines and concluded that there will be little or no impact to the Redwood trees.
The applicant also submitted an Irrigation Plan. Trenching forthe irrigation lines would be located awayfrom
the Redwood tree grove, along the right side of Lot 10. The proposed irrigation system consists of %z-inch
dripline tubing at grade. The City Arborist reviewed and approved the proposed Irrigation Plan.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum for the proposal identifies potential impacts in the areas
of Geology and Soils, Hydrology & Water Quality, Transportation/Traffic, Biological Resources, Utilities and
Service Systems and Aesthetics. All of these potential impacts were determined notto be significantwith the
implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study and Addendum. No additional
impacts are anticipated with the proposed revisions to the project and the identified mitigation measures are
still applicable.
ADDENDUM 2 TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1537 DRAKE AVENUE
REVISIONS TO PROPOSAL FOR RE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS PREVIOUSLY
MERGED BY A STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF 3 NEW SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
A. INTRODUCTION
This addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with Section 15164 of
the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), which permits
a lead agency (the City of Burlingame) to prepare an addendum to the previously prepared mitigated negative
declaration if some changes or additions to that mitigated negative declaration are necessary, but none of the
changes are sufficiently substantial to warrant preparation of a new (or subsequent) mitigated negative
declaration pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
As approved by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this addendum may be included in, or attached to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, but it need not be circulated for public review.
B. SUMMARY
On November 25, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed a project and Mitigated Negative Declaration for
re-emergence of the three lots and construction of new single-family residences on two of the three emerged
lots at 1537 Drake Avenue. The initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for that project
(ND-525-P) was prepared with the assumption that a third house would be built on the remaining emerged lot.
The City Council also reviewed this project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 6, 2003. At
that time the applicant was given direction to reduce the floor area of the houses and to go back to the
Planning Commission with a proposal for a113 lots. The applicant resubmitted a project on March 28, 2003.
The revised project differs in the following key respects:
Construction Staging
• Lot 11 will be developed concurrently with Lots 9 and 10.
The project does not increase the number of dwelling units that can be built on the 3 lots and proposes
protection and mitigation measures for the significant Redwood trees on the site. Therefore, the current
proposal is compliant with the city code requirements and is within the scope of the analysis of Mitigated
Negative Declaration (ND-525P). The following issues are those that were raised in the initial study as having
a potential for environmental impact. With mitigation, these impacts are shown to be reduced to less than
significant.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Redwood Trees: The significant Redwood trees identified will remain on site with the proposed application.
Construction traffic and proposed building structures have the potential to significantly impact on the trees.
In order to mitigate this potential impact, the applicant has agreed to abide by the following measures as
outlined in a report from Mayne Tree Company, dated Apri128, 2003:
• that root protection fencing shall be installed around the Redwood trees, in a location approved by a
licensed arborist and the City Arborist; this fencing will be in place prior to any demolition or
Addendum To Mitigated Negative Declaration 1537 Drake Avenue
construction on the site and will not be relocated or removed until such an action is approved by the City
Arborist and the Building Department;
• the applicant is also proposing to use a pier and grade beam foundation for sections of the dwellings on
Lots 9 and 10, pier holes for the foundation will be hand dug to a depth of 18 inches and a final
foundation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Depa.rtment and City Arborist before a
building permit is issued;
• the applicant is required to submit a full landscape plan, including irrigation, fencing, and soil deposits, to
the City Arborist for approval and all fence post holes in the root protection zone for the Redwood trees
will be hand dug;
• the developer will have a certified arborist on site during all grading and digging on site and the arborist
will submit weekly reports to the City Arborist to confirm that protection and mitigation measures are
being followed; and
• the developer is required to follow a 5-year maintenance plan, including reports by a licensed arborist, to
address the health of the Redwood trees and the developer shall bear the penalty fees if the trees do not
survive the 5-year period.
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS:
Access, Parking, and Noise During Construction: There is no vehicle turn-around area at the
termination of Drake Avenue. The construction vehicles required for the proposed project may create a
temporary impact on public safety, access, and circulation patterns during demolition and construction,
including on-street parking, unless specific measures are taken to address these issues. In addition, the
demolition and construction for the proposed project will create a temporary potentially significant impact
to the ambient noise levels in the neighborhood. Mitigation proposed by the applicant for the noise and
traffic impacts include:
• that all three houses shall be built concurrently to minimize the length of construction time;
• that there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays and there shall be no heavy equipment
operation or hauling permitted on weekends;
• that there shall be no construction equipment or material storage or construction worker parking in
the street in the City right-of-way during demolition or construction.
C. CONCLUSION
The mitigated negative declaration prepared for the original proposal identified potential impacts in the areas
of geology, hydrology and water quality, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems and aesthetics. All
of these potential impacts were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of the
mitigation measures identified in the initial study. With the proposed changes in the project, which show all
three lots to be developed concurrently, no additional impacts are anticipated, and the identified mitigation
measures are still applicable to the revised project.
-2-
ADDENDUM 1 TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1537 DRAKE AVENUE
REVISIONS TO PROPOSAL FOR RE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS PREVIOUSLY
MERGED BY A STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF 3 NEW SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
A. INTRODUCTION
This addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with Section 15164 of
the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), which permits
a lead agency (the City of Burlingame) to prepare an addendum to the previously prepared mitigated negative
declaration if some changes or additions to that mitigated negative declaration are necessary, but none of the
changes are sufficiently substantial to warrant preparation of a new (or subsequent) mitigated negative
declaration pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
As approved by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this addendum may be included in, or attached to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, but it need not be circulated for public review.
B. SUMMARY
On November 25, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed a proj ect and Mitigated Negative Declaration for
re-emergence of the three lots and construction of new single family residences on two of the three emerged
lots. The initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for that project (ND-525-P) was prepared
with the assumption that a third house would be built on the remaining emerged lot. The City Council also
reviewed this project ant the Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 6, 2003. At that time the applicant
was given direction to reduce the floor area of the houses and to go back to the Planning Commission with a
proposal for all 3 lots.
The revised project differs in the following key respects:
Lot 9:
Reduced the floor area by 268 SF (previous proposal with 3001 SF of floor area; current proposal has
a floor area of 2733 SF);
Lot 10:
• Increased the front setback by eight feet (previous proposal had a 22'-8" front setback; current proposal
has a 30'-8" front setback);
Lot 11:
• Proposes a house on Lot 11 with an attached one-car garage and a floor area of 2799 SF (0.47 FAR)
where 3022 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed (a conceptual plan submitted with the previous
proposal showed a 3020 SF (0.50 FAR), two-story house with attached garage); a 221 SF reduction
from the original proposal.
The project does not increase the number of dwelling units which can be built on the 3 lots and proposes to
reduce the floor area for two of the houses. Therefore, the current proposal is more compliant with the city
code requirements and therefore is covered by the analysis of Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-525P).
Addendum To Mitigated Negative Declaration 1537 Drake Avenue
The following issues are those which were raised in the initial study as having a potential for environmental
impact. With mitigation, these impacts were shown to be reduced to less than significant.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Redwood Trees: The significant Redwood trees will remain on site with the proposed application.
Construction traffic and proposed building structures may have a potentially significant impact on the
trees. Mitigation measures proposed by the applicant to protect the significant Redwood trees on site are
detailed in a memo from Mayne Tree Expert Company (see attached date stamped June 17, 2002) and
include: using Lot 11 for equipment staging and storage during construction on Lots 9(where the trees are
located) and 10, submitting a root protection area plan and post-construction soil compaction mitigation
plan to the City Arborist for review and approval before demolition of any structures on site, submitting a
footing foundation plan for the approval of the City Arborist, submitting a pre-foundation pour report for
approval by the City Arborist before scheduling pre- and post- pour inspections with the Building
Department, and submitting a Certified Arborist's report for the approval of the City Arborist for the
maintenance of the trees with developer responsible for ongoing maintenance or replacement costs for at
least 3 years after construction is completed.
UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Water Service: The existing water pipe which would serve three proposed houses on Lots 9, 10 and 11 is
old and has experienced build-up so that water pressure to the site is insufficient. The proposed
application may have a potentially significant impact on the water pressure. Mitigation proposed by the
applicant for the water pressure to the three new houses includes replacing the existing 2-inch water pipe
with a new 2-inch copper pipe, for a distance from its connection to the 2 inch line on Bernal Avenue and
through the rear easement along Lots 9, 10 and 11, to a point ending at the southeastern properiy corner of
Lot 9.
Sewer Service: There is an existing 6-inch sewer main located in the center of the street that serves the
properties on Drake Avenue. There are four properties down slope at the end of the sewer main, 1553
Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue. These four properties
have a history of sewage backup problems. This is caused by the fact that the properties have plumbing
fixtures below the man-hole level on Drake and by the shallow slope of the sewer main in the street.
Recently the city replaced the sewer laterals to these four houses, but protection against possible back-up
caused by foreign objects in the sewer main would require the private properiy owners to install back flow
valves on their sewer laterals. A mitigation proposed by the applicant to address the sewer issue is to
install backflow prevention devices on the four properties that are now subject to sewage backup. This
will reduce the impact of the development on the existing sewer service to a less than significant level.
In addition, the City of Burlingame has revised its sewer replacement work program and intends to
complete by summer of 2003 work on a sewer rehabilitation project in the vicinity of 1537 Drake Avenue.
This project will involve an upstream bypass of the upstream incoming flow of sewage from the manhole
at the end of the cul-de-sac on the 1500 block of Drake Avenue. The sewer system on Drake will also be
replaced with a new and larger system. The rehabilitation project is expected to greatly improve sewer
service and to help prevent sewage back-up problems in the area.
-2-
Addendum To Mitigated Negative Declaration 1537 Drake Avenue
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS:
Access, Parking, and Noise During Construction: There is no vehicle turn-around area at the
termination of Drake Avenue. The construction vehicles required for the proposed project may create a
temporary impact on public safety, access, and circulation patterns during demolition and construction,
including on-street parking, unless specific measures are taken to address these issues. In addition, the
demolition and construction for the proposed project will create a temporary potentially significant impact
to the ambient noise levels in the neighborhood. Mitigation proposed by the applicant for the noise and
traffic impacts include: a construction operation plan, date stamped September 23, 2002, showing a
construction parking area and temporary stabilized construction entrance to be established off-street on
Lot 11 for the duration of construction on Lots 9 and 10; there shall be no construction on Sundays or
holidays and there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends; there shall
be no construction equipment or construction worker parking in the street in the City right-of-way during
construction on Lots 9 and 10. Construction workers shall not park on Lots 9 and 10 during construction
on any of the lots.
C. CONCLUSION
The mitigated negative declaration prepared for the original proposal identified potential impacts in the areas
of geology, hydrology and water quality, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems and aesthetics. All
of these potential impacts were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of the
mitigation measures identified in the initial study. With the proposed changes in the project, which reduces
the overall floor area of the project, no additional impacts are anticipated, and the identified mitigation
measures are still applicable to the revised project.
-3-
�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
File No. ND-523 P,
The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on June 19, 2002, completed a review of the proposed
proj ect and determined that:
(XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment
(XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Proiect Description: The site at 1537 Drake Avenue consists of three parcels, Lots 9, 10, and 11. The
three lots are merged by one single-story, single-family home and various accessory structures. There are 6
Redwood trees located at the northwest side of Lot 9 that have been declared a significant biological
resources by the City Arborist. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and accessory
structures and to build three two-story, single-family residences with detached garages; one house on each
of the pre-existing 6,006 SF lots which emerge as a result of demolishing the existing house and accessory
structures. The significant Redwood trees will remain on site and be protected during conshuction.
The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for the re-emergence of three parcels previously merged
by a structure and design review for three new single-family residences. The project meets all zoning code
requirements.
Reasons for Conclusion: The proposed proj ect is consistent with the General Plan, the lots are all of legal
size and meet all zoning requirements. The significant trees on site will remain and mitigation measures
have been proposed by the applicant to reduce the potentially significant impacts to less than significant
for the significant trees, the existing sewer line capacity, the existing water line capacity, erosion control
and storm water run-offduring demolition and construction, and traffic flow and noise during demolition
and construction. The potentially significant aesthetic impacts are mitigated to less than significant
because the proposed project will be required to obtain a conditional use permit and to go through design
review before demolition or construction permits are issued.
Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting findings, it is found that with the mitigation
measures proposed, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting fndings, it is found that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
0 Citx Planner �` ��' �Z
Signa of Processing Official Title Date
, This determination becomes final after action at a public hearing held before the Planning Commission,
unless the Commission's action is appealed to the City Council.
Date posted: June 19, 2002
Declaration of Postin�
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 June 19 , 2002.
Appealed: ( ) Yes ( ) No
ANN MUSS , CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title:
2.
3
�
5.
�
7.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning: R-1
1537 Drake Avenue
City of Burlingame, Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Margaret Monroe, City Planner
(650) 558-7250
Parcel with an address of 1537 Drake Avenue,
Burlingame, California
Otto Miller
1537 Drake Avenue
Burlingame CA 94010
Low-Density Residential
APN: 026-033-030
8. Description of the Project: The site at 1537 Drake Avenue consists of three parcels, Lots 9, 10, and
11. The three lots are merged by one single-story, single-family home and various accessory
structures. There are 6 Redwood trees located at the northwest side of Lot 9 that have been declared a
significant biological resources by the City Arborist. The applicant is proposing to demolish the
existing dwelling and accessory structures and to build three two-story, single-family residences with
detached garages; one house on each of the pre-existing 6,006 SF lots which emerge as a result of
demolishing the existing house and accessory structures. The significant Redwood trees will remain on
site and be protected during construction.
The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for the re-emergence of three parcels previously
merged by a structure and design review for three new single-family residences. The proj ect meets all
zoning code requirements.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The property is on the south side of Drake Avenue,
approximately 50 feet from the termination of the street. With the proposed project, lot lines for
three 6006 SF lots on the site will re-emerge. The surrounding land use is single-family
residential. The majority of the existing lots in the neighborhood are approximately 6000 SF, with
the creek-side lots being irregularly shaped and having larger lot areas. There is a 10-foot public
easement running along the rear of the three lots. The project site slopes slightly north and
downhill towards Drake Avenue and Mills Creek, which is 60 feet to the northwest of the site .
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this proj ect, involving at least one
impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning X Biological Resources X Aesthetics
Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources
X Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recreation
Materials
X Hydrology & Water X Noise Agricultural Resources
Quality
Air Quality Public Services X Mandatory Findings of
Signifieance
X Transportation/Traffic X Utilities and Service
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd that the proposed project COiJLD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd that although the proposed proj ect could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fmd 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 IIVIPACT 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.
1' IJ� G�� �(1►�- L� lci 2c_.�DZ
Margaret onroe, City Planner Date
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Signiticant Signiticant Signi�cant 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 regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program 1,2 X
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan? 1 16 X
>
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial popularion growth in an area, either d'uectly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastruchue)? 1,3 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of exisring housing, necessitating 3 X
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 3 X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substanrial adverse 5,6,7 X
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a lrnown earthquake fault, as delineated on the most 5,6,7 X
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a]rnown fault? Refer to Division of Mines and •
Geology Special Publicarion 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 5,6,7 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 5,6,7 X
iv) Landslides? 6 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 5,4,11 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 5,6 7 X
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 18-1-B of the 5,6,7 X
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 1,5 X
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
4. AYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 9,10,11 X
requirements?
b) Substanrially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 1,16 X
substantially with �roundwater recharge such that there would be
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
SigniTicant Significant Significant ImpaCt
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which pernuts have been
granted)? '
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 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 1,4,9,
siltation on- or off-site? 11 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or 1,4,9, X
river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface 11
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 1 4,9,
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or 10,11 X
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,4,9,
11 X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 12 X
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would 12 X
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or struchues to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the 1 X
failure of a levee or dam?
j) 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 applicable air 1,13 X
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or 1,13 X
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 1,13 X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,13 X
concentrations?
e) Create objecrionable odors affecting a substanrial number of 1,13 X
people?
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,9,11 X
existing tra�c load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result
in a substanrial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentiaiiy Less 7'han No
Signiticant Significant Signifcant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
intersecrions)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cwnulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? 15 X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 1,14 X
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp 2,4 X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 2 X
fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,4,9, X
11
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 1,4 X
altemarive transportarion (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regularions, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,19 X
b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 1,16 X
other sensitive natural community idenrified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Departrnent
of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but 1,16 X
not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or 1,16 X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of narive wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1,19 X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation 1,16 X
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a lrnown mineral resource that 1,18 X
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific 1,18 X
plan or other land use plan?
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Signiticant ImpaCt
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? 1,17 X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 1,2,12, X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the 17
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile 1,4,17 X
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 1 � X
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located withiu an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public 1, 14 X
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
� For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in 1 X
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 1,20 X
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 1,20 X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are internuxed
with wildlands?
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 1,9,11 X
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 1,4 X
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 1 X
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1,4,9, X
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the 11
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 1,14 X
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
auport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the 1 X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered �overnment faciliries, the construcrion of which could
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially roce�c�any Less Than No
SigniBcant Significant Signiticant Impact
Issues Unless ImpaM
Mitigation
Incorporated
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? 1,20 X
b) Police protecrion? 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 applicable 1,9,10, X
Regional Water Quality Control Board? 11
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater 1,9,10 X
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing faciliries, the construction of 1,9,10 X
which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from 1,9,10 X
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 1,9 X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments?
� Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1,9 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 1,9 X
related to solid waste?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substanrial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 1 X
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,2,4 X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,4 X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the azea?
14. CULTURAI. RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Create a substanrial adverse change in the significance of a 1,4 X
historical resource as defined in'15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,4 X
archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1,4 X
or site or unique geological feature?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Signi�cant Significant ImpaCt
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Dishub any human remains, including those interred outside of 1,4 X
formal cemeteries?
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and 1,4 X
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the 1,4 X
construcrion or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In deternuning whether irnpacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agriculhual Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservarion as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farniland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of 1 X
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 agriculhual use, or a 1 X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing envuonment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, 1 X
to non-agricultural use?
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potenrial to degrade the quality of the
envirorunent, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife popularion 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? 1,8,19 X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X
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 ofprobable future projects)?
1
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either d'uectly or
indirectly? 1 X
Initial Study Summary 1537 Drake Avenue
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, Califomia, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 1995 edition.
3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 1994.
4 Sheet A.2 date stamped June 14, 2002, Preliminary Plan of the Site.
5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1971.
6 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California,
1972.
7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF,
San Mateo County: California, 1987.
8 Mayne Tree Company Arborist Report, date stamped March 5, 2002, by the Planning Department
9 Engineering Memos dated March 18, 2002, Apri18, 2002, and June 4, 2002
10. LTI sanitary sewer and storm water capacity calculations and water pipe replacement plan date stamped May 31, 2002
by the Planning Department
11 LTI Erosion Plan, date stamped May 31, 2002 by the Planning Department and Construction Plan, date stamped June
6, 2002 by the Planning Department
12 Map of Approximate Locations of ] 00 year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance
Maps, September 16, 1981
13 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December, 1995
14 San Mateo County Comprehensive airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, December, 1994
15 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 1997
16 Map ofAreas ofSpecial Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department
of Fish and Game
17 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998
18 E. Brabb, F. Taylor, and G. Miller, Geologic, Scenic and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, Department
of Interior, 1982
19 City Arborist Memo, dated Apri12, 2002
20 Fire Department Memo, dated March 18, 2002
Initial Study Summary
1537 Drake Avenue
Land use and Planning Summary: The three re-emerging lots proposed for single-family residential
development are 6006 SF, a density of 7.3 units per acre. The Zoning Code establishes a minimum lot
size for this area of 5000 SF and the low-density residential designation of the General Plan allows a
maximum of 8 units per acre in this area. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and
zoning requirements. The R-1 zoning district permits new single-family residences, provided they
complete a design review to evaluate the architectural consistency of the design for the proposed dwelling
and for the compatibility of the proposed residences with the neighborhood setting
One single-family dwelling and vaxious accessory structures currently merge the existing three lots at
1537 Drake Avenue. Planning Code Section 25.28.30(6) requires a conditional use permit for the
demolition of the existing structures and to build on lots with re-emerging lot lines. Conditional use
permits are granted by the Planning Commission if it finds: that the proposed use will not be detrimental
to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare or convenience; and that the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manrier in accord
with the Burlingame General Plan and purposes of the zoning code. The proposed residences conform to
all measurable requirements of the zoning code; the Planning Commission determines compliance with
design review criteria.
Mitigation:
• A conditional use permit shall be required before any demolition or construction is allowed on site.
� The proposed residences shall complete the design review process and be approved by the Planning
Commission before any demolition or construction is allowed on site.
• The project shall meet the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Population and Housing Summary: This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density
residential uses. The proposed infill residential development conforms to the City of Burlingame General
Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the
area. The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element. The proposed project will create more
housing by adding a net of two houses on the original site.
Geologic Summary: The site is flat and located in an urban setting, which has been developed with
single-family homes for approximately 88 years. The site is approximately 2 miles from the San Andreas
Fault, but is not within the Alquist-Priola zone. The site is within 2%z miles of the Serra Fault, a minor
thrust fault considered to have common roots with the San Andreas Fault. There are no known faults on
the site. The seismic exposure will be reduced over the present development, since the residences will
incorporate the seismic construction requirements of the California Building Code, 1998 Edition.
The site is relatively level and does not have a history of landslides. The soil type is designated as QTs,
which is a deformed older sedimentary deposit which primarily consists of irregularly bedded gravel, sand
and silt clay. Under seismic conditions most Burlingame soils are reasonably stable. This site is in an
area of very low (0-0.2 probability ) liquefaction susceptibility. The project will be required to meet all
the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability.
10
Initial Study Summary
1537 Drake Avenue
Mitigation:
• That the project shall be required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 1998 Edition, including seismic standards, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for
structural stability
Water Summary: This project is a residential infill development project and it is not located adjacent to a
waterway. Mills Creek runs approximate 60 feet to the northwest of the site, beyond the lots developed
with single-family dwellings at the termination of Drake Avenue. The project site is located in Flood
Zone B, which is outside the 100-year flood zone.
There is an existing 2-inch water line to the site that runs along the rear of the lots in a 10-foot public
easement. This line connects to a main water line on Bernal Avenue. The 2-inch water pipe does not
provide adequate water pressure for the single-family dwelling on site. The pipe is old and has
experienced build-up, reducing the capacity of the line to that of a 3/a inch line. The proposed project will
connect an additional two dwellings to the already insufficient water pipe and there will be a potentially
significant impact to the water pressure on the site unless mitigation measures are provided. The Public
Works Department has recommended that the 2-inch pipe located in the 10-foot public easement at the
rear of the project site be replaced by a new 2-inch copper pipe, which will reduce this impact to less than
significant.
Mitigation:
• The applicant shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe, from its connection to the 2-inch line on
Bernal Avenue and through the back easements along Lost 9, 10 and 11, to a point ending at the
southeastern property corner of Lot 9, with a 2-inch copper pipe, as directed and approved by the
City Engineer.
• The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the
2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way before receiving a Building permit.
Air Quality Summary: The three proposed single-family residences would-replace one single-family
residence on the site. While this project may accommodate more people than the previous use, the change
in emissions generated by two new houses at this location over emissions from all development in
Burlingame is insignificant. The site is within walking distance of countywide bus service. The three lots
are zoned for low-density residential development and with proper adherence to regional air quality
requirements during construction, the proposed project will not create any deterioration in the air quality
or climate, locally or regionally.
Mitigation:
• That demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be
required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Qualtty Management District prior to issuance
of a demolition permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the permit shall be
complied with.
Transportation/Circulation Summary: The site is on Drake Avenue, a local street that terminates
approximately 50' north of the proposed project site. Drake Avenue has access to Adeline Drive, a
collector street which provides access to El Camino Real, a regional arterial. This project will not create a
permanent substantial increase in the traffic generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local
11
Initial Study Summary
1537 Drake Avenue
roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any incremental traffic or trip generation
produced by the increase of 2 dwellings for this proposed project. On-site parking requirements
established in the zoning code are met for the proposed single-family dwellings.
There is no vehicle turn-around area at the termination of Drake Avenue. The construction vehicles
required for the proposed project may create a temporary impact on public safety, access, and circulation
patterns during demolition and construction, including on-street parking, unless specific measures are
taken to address these issues. The applicant has submitted a construction operation plan, date stamped
June 6, 2002, showing a construction parking area to be established at the left front of Lot 11; a temporary
stabilized construction entrance shall be installed to span Lots 9, 10, and 11; and there shall be no heavy
equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends.
Mitigation:
• That the applicant shall comply with the construction operation plan submitted June 6, 2002, which
identifies a construction parking area and stabilized entrance.
• That there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays and no heavy equipment operation or
hauling permitted on weekends or holidays.
• That no construction equipment parking and or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the
street in the public right-of-way.
Biological Resources Summary: The site has been fully developed and used for residential uses since
1914. There are 6 Redwood trees on site that have been identified as a significant biological resource by
the City Arborist. The 6 existing Redwood trees are located at the front of Lot 9 and are roughly clustered
into two groves. The first grove, comprised of two trees, is at the northeast corner of Lot 9 and is 37'-0"
from the proposed dwelling on Lot 9 and 17'-0" from the proposed dwelling on Lot 10. The second grove,
comprised of four trees, is located along the west side of Lot 9, approximately 39'-0" from the front
property line, and is 7'-5" from the proposed dwelling on Lot 9 and 15'-0" from the proposed dwelling on
Lot 10.
In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot is required to provide a minimum of 3, 24-
inch box-size minimum non-fruit trees. The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the
reforestation requirements.
The 6 Redwood trees will remain on site in their current location with the proposed project. There may be
a potentially significant impact to the health of the trees unless mitigation measures are proposed. The
City Arborist has proposed that the applicant provide, for his approval, a root protection plan addressing
all phases of construction, a footing foundation plan, a pre-foundation pour report, and post-construction
tree maintenance report, and that the applicant schedule pre and final foundation pour tree inspections. In
addition, the construction parking area and entrance established by the applicant on the construction plan
date stamped June 6, 2002, will allow vehicles within 9 feet of the first grove of trees and within 4 feet of
the second grove of trees. For this reason, the City Arborist also requires that a post-construction
mitigation plan for soil compaction impacts during construction be submitted for his approval and that an
inspection be scheduled by the applicant before a demolition permit is issued to insure that the tree
protection measures are being met. These measures will reduce the impact of construction to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation:
12
Initial Study Summary
1537 Drake Avenue
• The applicant shall submit a root protection area plan to the City Arborist for approval before a
demolition permit is issued by the Building Department for the existing single-family residence
and/or accessory structures.
• The applicant shall submit a post-construction mitigation plan for soil compaction impacts during
construction to the City Arborist for approval before a demolition permit is issued by the Building
Department for the existing single-family residence and/or accessory structures.
• The construction parking zone established by the applicant on the plans submitted June 6, 2002, and
any measures approved by the City Arborist in the root protection area plan, shall be established by
the applicant and be inspected by the City Arborist before a demolition permit is issued by the
Building Department for the existing single-family residence and/or accessory structures.
• The applicant shall submit a footing foundation plan to the City Arborist for approval at the
application for a Building permit and before a before a Building permit is issued.
• The applicant shall submit a pre-foundation pour report to the City Arborist for approval of
protection measures at the application for a Building permit; and the applicant shall schedule pre and
final foundation pour inspections to insure adherence with the Building Department.
• The applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborist's report to detail
post-construction guidelines concerning trimming and fertilizing before the Building Department
issues a final for the project.
• That a licensed arborist, approved by the City and funded by the developer, shall inspect the
construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department
that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met.
• That the licensed arborist shall provide a post-construction maintenance program to the developer
and the property owners adjacent to the significant trees with instructions on how to maintain them
and identify warning signs of poor tree health; the developer shall be responsible for the
maintenance of the trees for 3 years after construction is finalled by the City and shall bear the
penalty fee should the trees not survive the 3-year period.
Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: All gas and electric services are in place with capacity to
handle the addition of two new residences to the City of Burlingame. The incremental increase to the use
of energy is insignificant primarily because the new residences will comply with Title 24 requirements,
while the residence removed was built before these requirements.
Hazards Summary: This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By
its residential nature, this project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment a.nd
will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to
implement. There are no known health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and
Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure
are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. NPDES permit is required to ensure that
runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways.
Noise Summary: The site has been developed for approximately 88 years with a single-family residence.
The new proposal will not permanently increase the existing ambient noise levels because it is replacing
structures of similar use, which are compliant to current construction standards, including increased
insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. In addition, the site is not located in area regularly
subject to regular unusual noise effects such as airplane fly-overs.
13
Initial Study Summary
]537 Drake Avenue
All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code and as listed on
the construction plan date stamped June 6, 2002, which limit 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. There shall be no construction on
Sundays or holidays and no heavy equipment operation or hauling on the site shall be permitted on
weekends or holidays.
Mitigation:
• All construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as
amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of
Burlingame Municipal Code and by the construction plan submitted by the applicant and date
stamped June 6, 2002; these hours are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. There shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays and no heavy
equipment operation or hauling shall be permitted on weekends or holidays.
• That the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise
level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas.
Public Services Summary: Because the project is infill, represents an insignificant increase in the total
population of the City, and is located on an already developed site, the existing public and governmental
services in the area have capacities which can accommodate the addition of two new single-family
residences.
Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in
place in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems.
There is an existing 4 inch sewer main in the center of the street that serves the properties on Drake
Avenue. There are four properties down slope at the end of the sewer main, 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557
Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue, with partial basements below the street
level. These four properties have a history of sewage backup problems. This is caused by the fact that the
properties have plumbing fixtures below the manhole level on Drake and by the shallow slope of the
sewer main in the street. Recently the city replaced the sewer laterals to these four houses, but protection
against possible back up caused by foreign objects in the sewer main would require the private property
owners to install backflow valves on their sewer laterals. The proposed project will connect two
additional sewer laterals to the main sewage line. All of the three proposed residences are on the higher
side of Drake Avenue and none will have below-grade living areas.
A sewer capacity study submitted by the applicant (date stamped May 31, 2002) shows that the sewer
main has adequate capacity for the flow in the neighborhood and for the increase of 33 drainage fixture
units resulting from the two additional residences. There will be no significant impact to the capacity or
flow of the main line as a result of the proposed project. The existing sewer main is on a City list for
frequent maintenance (see April 8, 2002 memo from Engineering Department). The applicant is proposing
to install backflow prevention devices at the four properties which have a history of sewage backup. This
will reduce the impact of the project to a less than significant level.
The site is approximately 60 feet from Mills Creek and slopes downhill towards Drake Avenue, in a
northwesterly direction towards the creek. The site is tied into the existing storm water distribution lines
which have adequate capacity in the system. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street
frontages. Half of the residences on the 1500 block of Drake Avenue drain to an inlet at the end of Drake
14
Initial Study Summary
1537 Drake Avenue
' Avenue, which then drains into Mills Creek. Studies submitted by the applicant (date stamped May 31,
2002) show that the existing 12-inch storm water pipe has adequate capacity to absorb the additional
0.07units of storm water run-off generated by the two new houses.
The current solid waste service provider is BFI, which sends solid waste collected in Burlingame to Ox
Mountain Landfill. Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The
general contractor would be required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream transport the construction
waste separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid waste generated during
operation of the project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial.
The City of Burlingame has recently adopted an ordinance requiring recycling of construction waste and
demolition debris. The ordinance requires that 60 per cent 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.
Mitigation:
• The applicant shall install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake
Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the applicant's expense and with the
permission of the property owners; the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners
of this condition of approval.
• To establish erosion control and to prevent silted runoff from running into the creeks and storm
drain system during demolition and construction, the applicant shall place straw rolls at the front of
Lots 9, 10, and 11 along Drake Avenue and shall establish a stabilized construction entrance of a 4-
inch minimum depth of crushed stone across Lots 9, 10, and 11.
• That the shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be
approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction
demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the applicant shall be required to
implement this plan.
• All runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
Aesthetics Summary:
The three proposed two-story single-family residential dwellings are replacing and existing single-story,
single-family dwelling. The project will result in the re-emergence of three 6006 SF lots, where 6000 SF
lots are the predominant pattern in the neighborhood. The three proposed dwellings are subject to design
review to insure that each is internally architecturally consistent in design and consistent with the existing
size and mass of the dwellings in the neighborhood. The neighborhood is a nearly equal mix of single-
story and two-story dwellings. At this particular location, the land is flat and the area fully developed; no
distant views or vistas are present.
Street trees in the public planter strip, as well as the 6 Redwood trees on site, provide much of the
ambience in the area and these trees will be protected during construction and remain after construction.
Street trees will be added as part of the construction. The applicant is proposing to fully landscape each
lot as shown on plans date stamped June 17, 2002, Sheet L-1. The plans show that on Lot 9 the existing
significant Redwoods will remain after construction and 13 new trees will be added on the lot to screen
the two-story house and garage, and 1 new tree will be added to the City planter strip in the public right-
15
Initial Study Summary 1 S37 Drake Avenue
of-way. On Lot 10, 11 new trees will be added on the lot and on Lot 1 l, there will be 13 new trees added
on the lot and 2 new trees will be added to the City planter strip in the public right-of-way.
Because of building placement and added vegetation, there will be no significant increase in light and
glare on site from the proposed residential uses. Exterior lighting provided on each lot will be required to
conform to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be directed onto
the site. The average front setback for the block is 21'-1". The proposed residence on Lot 9 will have at
front setback of 39'-7" to accommodate the 6 Redwood trees. The residence on Lot 10 will have a front
setback of 22'-8" and Lot 11 will have a front setback of 25'-6".
Mitigation:
• That this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance.
• That the Certified Arborist report to be submitted before a demolition permit is issued by the
Building Department for the existing single-family residence andlor accessory structures, shall
include any existing street trees and how they shall be protected during construction.
• That the applicant shall provided landscaping on each site as shown on the plans date stamped June
17, 2002, Sheet 1-1, including three minimum 24-inch box size trees to be planted in the planter strip
in the City right-of-way.
• That the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before demolition or
construction takes place on the site.
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, since the sites are relatively level and there are no below grade living areas proposed. 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.
Mitigation:
• That should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until
they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the
recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City.
15. RECREATION SUMMARY: The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing
recreational facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City
of Burlingame. The sites involved in this project are not presently zoned or used for recreational uses.
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES:
that the project shall be required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 1998 edition, including seismic standards, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for
structural stability.
2. that a conditional use permit shall be required before any demolition or construction is allowed on
site. The proposed residences shall complete the design review process and be approved by the
Planning Commission before any demolition or constntction is allowed on site.
16
Initial Study Summary 1537 Drake Avenue
� 3. that demolition 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. All
requirements of the permit shall be complied with.
4. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation
Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department;
complete landscape plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application as shown on
the plans date stamped June 17, 2002, Sheet L-1, including three minimum 24-inch box size trees to
be planted in the planter strip in the City right-of-way, one in front of Lot 9 and two in front of Lot
11.
5. that the Certified Arborist report to be submitted before a demolition permit is issued by the
Building Department for the existing single-family residence and/or accessory structures shall
include any existing street trees and how they shall be protected during construction.
6. that the applicant shall submit a root protection area plan to the City Arborist for approval before a
demolition permit is issued by the Building Department for the existing single-family residence
and/or accessory structures.
7. that the applicant shall submit a post-construction mitigation plan for soil compaction impacts
during construction to the City Arborist for approval before a demolition permit is issued by the
Building Department for the existing single-family residence and/or accessory structures.
that the construction parking zone established by the applicant on the plans submitted June 6, 2002,
and any measures approved by the City Arborist in the root protection area plan, shall be established
by the applicant and be inspected by the City Arborist before a demolition permit is issued by the
Building Department for the existing single-family residence andlor accessory structures.
9. the applicant shall submit a footing foundation plan to the City Arborist for approval at the
application for a Building permit and before a Building permit is issued.
10. the applicant shall submit a pre-foundation pour report to the City Arborist for approval of
protection measures at the application for a Building permit; and the applicant shall schedule pre and
final foundation pour inspections to insure adherence with the Building Department.
11. the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certiiied Arborist's report to detail
post-construction guidelines concerning trimming and fertilizing before the Building Department
issues a final for the project.
12. that a licensed arborist, approved by the City and funded by the developer, shall inspect the
construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department
that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met.
13. that the licensed arborist shall provide a post-construction maintenance program to the developer
and the property owners adjacent to the significant trees with instructions on how to maintain them
and identify warning signs of poor tree health; the developer shall be responsible for the
maintenance of the trees for 3 years after construction is finalled by the City and shall bear the
17
Initial Study Summary 1537 Drake Avenue
� penalty fee should the trees not survive the 3-year period.
14. that the applicant shall comply with the construction operation plan submitted June 6, 2002, which
identifies a construction parking area and stabilized entrance.
15. that there shall no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays.
16. that no construction equipment parking and or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the
street in the public right-of-way.
17. all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as
amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of
Burlingame Municipal Code and by the construction plan submitted by the applicant and date
stamped June 6, 2002; these hours are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. There shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays.
18. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise
level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas.
19. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be
installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution
systems shall be increased at the developer's expense if necessary.
20. that the new sewer laterals from the three lots to the public sewer main shall be installed to City
standards as required by the development.
21. that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed.
22. that the applicant shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe, from its connection to the 2-inch line
on Bernal Avenue and through the back easements along Lost 9, 10 and 11, to a point ending at the
southeastern property corner of Lot 9, with a 2-inch copper pipe, as directed and approved by the
City Engineer.
23. the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the
2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way before receiving a Building permit.
24. that the applicant shall install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557
Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the applicant's expense and with the
permission of the property owners; the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners
of this condition of approval.
25. to establish erosion control and to prevent silted runoff from running into the creeks and storm drain
system during demolition and construction, the applicant shall place straw rolls at the front of Lots 9,
10, and 11 along Drake Avenue and shall establish a stabilized construction entrance of a 4-inch
minimum depth of crushed stone across Lots 9, 10, and 11.
26. that the shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be
[E:j
Initial Study Summary
1537 Drake Avenue
approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction
demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the applicant shall be required to
implement this plan.
27. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
28. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance.
29. that the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before demolition or
construction takes place on the site.
30. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.
31. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they
are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the
recoinmendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City.
19