A statement from an authority

In a recent article in the SM County Times on how the city handles potential historic properties, there were misleading statements. many of those inaccuracies have been addressed on the Burlingame Voice in an earlier thread. However, below is a statement from the City of Burlingame's Community Development Director, William Meeker.

From William Meeker:

Information has been submitted to the Community Development Department that provides historical background regarding the property at 1540 Newlands Avenue, development on Newlands Avenue and of the Burlingame Park neighborhood.  While the information submitted to the City is not in and of itself, sufficient to permit staff to determine the property’s eligibility as a State or Federal historic resource, enough information is contained in the materials to raise the question of the historic status of the property and neighborhood and hence, further analysis pursuant to CEQA for any discretionary project that may be submitted on the property in question.
 
CEQA (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 through 21177, and implemented by the CEQA Guidelines – California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 through 15387) requires all local government entities to consider environmental impacts attributable to development projects requiring “discretionary” review.  A discretionary project is one that requires the exercise of judgment or deliberations on the part of the agency to determine the efficacy of approving a particular project.  This is distinguished from “ministerial” actions that require the agency to simply determine compliance with specific standards and codes(e.g. issuance of a building permit).  Within the City of Burlingame, any development project (including remodeling of existing structures, changes of use in certain instances, etc.) that require review and approval by the City’s Planning Commission are considered “discretionary” for purposes of CEQA.  For this reason, any project submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission must first be evaluated at the staff level to determine the level of review required pursuant to CEQA.  In Burlingame, demolition of single-family dwellings with replacement by a new single-family dwelling requires Design Review by the Planning Commission, a procedure that falls within the definition of a “discretionary” action as defined above.  It is also notable that second story additions to existing single family dwellings also require discretionary review by the Planning Commission.
 
Some specifics regarding 1540 Newlands Avenue.  The Planning Division of the Community Development Department was approached by an individual interested in purchasing the site and demolishing both residences on the property (a double lot), with the intention of building a new home on each lot that would “emerge” as a result of the demolition of the existing structures.  Such a project would require discretionary review by the City’s Planning Commission, and would be subject to review pursuant to CEQA.  CEQA requires the reviewing agency to determine the impact of a proposed project upon environmental resources; historic/cultural resources being among the numerous categories subject to evaluation.  The criteria applied by the local agency for determining whether or not a project may have an impact upon an historic resource are contained within Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.  Though not stated in the CEQA Guidelines, generally speaking, the minimum threshold triggering the evaluation of a structure as a potential historic resource is that it is at least 50-years old; this threshold is commonly used by the Federal registry program as well as the State registry program.  Both structures on the property at 1540 Newland Avenue were built well in excess of 50-years ago and meet this minimum threshold.  In Burlingame, this threshold alone would not trigger the need for an historic evaluation of a property; we generally rely upon additional information regarding the history of the property (e.g. history of the design, ownership, how the site fits into the general growth and development of the community and/or neighborhood) before staff determines further evaluation is required pursuant to CEQA.  In the case of the Newlands property, the information submitted that documents the property’s and neighborhood’s history is sufficient to raise the question regarding its historic value; therefore, CEQA requires the City to conduct an evaluation to determine eligibility as a State or Federal resource.
 
If someone were to purchase the property in question with the intention of continuing to use both existing structures as residences, or permits were sought to modifications/additions that do not trigger “discretionary” review by the Planning Commission, CEQA evaluation would not typically be required, such a project would be considered “exempt” from CEQA.  If someone were to purchase the property with the intention of seeking Planning Commission approval of discretionary permits, the impact of the proposed modifications upon the property must be evaluated pursuant to CEQA.  The level of review could be as simple as preparation of a “Negative Declaration”: a determination that the project will have no significant impact upon the resource; a “Mitigated Negative Declaration”: a determination that impacts upon the resource can be reduced to a level of insignificance through imposition of specific conditions of approval; or preparation of an “Environmental Impact Report” (EIR): required when project impacts cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance through imposition of conditions, e.g. demolition of the resource.
 
Given the presence of the information that was submitted to the Planning Division, the scenario described above will be applied to requests for discretionary development approvals within Burlingame Park.  Keep in mind, however, that this analysis will not be required for projects that do not require Planning Commission approval.  Additionally, such an analysis would not be required for projects involving modifications to structures that are less than 50-years of age.
 
 

William Meeker, Director Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010

 

 

Comments

[Fiona]

Despite the Burlingame Voice editors thinking this subject is closed, it is not because this has ramifications for home owners, our town and - interestingly enough - our upcoming election.

The city website includes some new information:

http://www.burlingame.org/Index.aspx?page=1456