HomeMy WebLinkAbout128 Lorton Avenue - Environmental Document� ..��
Notice of Exemption Appendix E
To: Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044, Raom 113
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
County Clerk
County of: San Mateo
555 Counry Center
Redwood City, CA, 94063
Project Title: 128 Lorton Avenue Project
From: (Public AgenCy): City of Burlingame, Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA. 94010
(Address)
Project Applicant: Pacific West Communities, 430 East State Street, Suite 100, Eagle, ID. 83616
Project Location - Specific:
128 Lorton Avenue, Burfingame, CA, 94010 (APN 028-231-210)
Project Location - City: Burfingame Project Location - County: San Mateo
Description of Nature, Pu�pose and Beneficiaries of Project:
The Project would construct a five-story residential building with 19 residential units, two of which would
be affordable, and reserved for moderate-income households. In addition, an enclosed at-grade parking
garage on the ground flaor would provide 17 vehicle parking spaces using a two-level stacking system.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Burlingame
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Community Development/Planninq Division (Burlingame�
Exempt Status: (check one):
❑ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b}(1); 15268};
❑ Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
❑ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
■ Categorical Exemption. State type and section number:
❑ Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
Reasons why project is exempt:
Class 32 Infill Exemption (Section 15332)
The Project (a) is consistent with applicable general plan designation/zoning and all policies; (b) is no more
than 5 acres and surraunded by urban uses; (c) has no value as habitat;(d) would not result in significant
effects re{ated to tra�c, noise, air quality, or water quality; (e) can be adequately served by all required utilities
and public services. In addition, the Project would not trigger any of the excsptions in Section 15300.2.
Lead Agency Ruben Hurin, Plannin Mana er 650-558-7256
Contact Person: 9 9 Area Cade/Telephone/Extension:
r
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a Notice of Exemption been tiled by the public agency approving the project? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Signature: ��'���' Date: 7 ��' �2 D Tit)e: P) Ann �n N�AntL � tr'
�Signed by Lead Agency ❑ Signed by Applicant
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR:
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152_f, Public Resources Code.
Revised 2011
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin�ame.org
a� c�TY o
� �
BURLINGAME ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
"°��qeT�p� e>°°° (to be completed by applicant when Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact
Report is required)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Address: 128 Lorton
Applicant Name: Chris Grant
Address: 430 E. State Street
City/State/Zip: Eagle/Idaho/83616
Phone: 208-830-9438
Assessor's Parcel Number: 029-231-210
Property Owner Name:
Address: 128 Lorton Ave
City/State/Zip: Burlingame/California/94010
Phone:
Permit applications required far this project (special permit, variance, subdivision map, parcel map,
condominium permit, building permit, etc.):
Related permits, applications and approvals required for this project by City, Regional, State and Federal
Agencies:
SITE INFORMATION
Site size: �• � 72 Acres and �,492 Square Feet Existing Zoning: R-4
Existing use(s) of property: 4 unit residential
Total Number of Existin� Parking Spaces�: Number of Compact Spaces�:
Number of Existing Structures and Total Square Footage of Each: 2 structures, both residentatl.
Back building is 1,350 sqft, Front building is 2,590
Will any structures be demolished for this project? X Yes No
Size and use of structures to be demolished: 2 structures will be demolished. Current used as
4 residential units
Number and size of existing trees on site': No trees onsite
Will any of the existing tress be removed? Yes No
If Yes, list number, size and type of trees to be removed:
Are there any natural or man-made water channels which run through or adjacent to the site?
Yes X No If Yes, where?
� City of Burlingame minimum standard parking space size is 9'x20'. The minimum size for compact parking spaces is 8'x1T.
Refer to City of Burlingame Zoning Ordinance C.S. 25.70 for parking requirements for particular uses.
, Refer to the City of Burlingame's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (CS. 11.06) for tree removal permit
and tree planting requirements.
ENVREV.FRM
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin�ame.org
Describe in general the existing surrounding land uses to the:
North Surface parking and residential multi-story buildings
South Surface parkinq lot
East Surface parking lot
West Residential multi-story buildinqs
PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Description: 5 story residential building consisting of on grade parking with 4 levels
residential above.
Residential Projects:
Number of Dwelling Units: � 9
Size ofUnit(s): 14 of 1 bedroom @ 630 sqft; 5 of 2 bedroom @ 910 sqft; 4 of 2 bedroom @ 950 sqft
1 of 3 bedroom @ 1500 sqft
Household size (nuinber of persons per unit) expected: 1 br = 1.5/unit; 2br = 2.25/unit; 2br = 4/unit;
Total = 46 for all units
Commercial/Industrial Projects:
Type and square footage of each use: N/A
Estinlated number of employees per shift:
Will the project involve the use, disposal or ernission of potentially hazardous materials (including
petroleum products)?_ Yes No
If Yes, please describe:_
Institutional Projects (public facilities, hospitals, schools):
Major function of facility: N/A
Estimated number of em��loyees per shift:
Estimated Occupancy:_
For all Projects:
Flood Hazard: Is this site within a special flood hazard area? Yes X No
Land Use: If the project involves a conditional use permit, variance or rezoning application, please
explain why the applications are required3:
' Please fill out and submit the appropriate application fonn 9variance special permit, etc.)
ENVREV.FRM
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin�ame.org
Building gross square footage: Existing: 3,940 Proposed: 26,325
Number of floors of construction: Existing: 2 Proposed: 5
Traffic/Circulation: Standard and compact off-street parking spaces provided:
Existing: Standard 4
Compact �
Total 4
Proposed: Standard � �
Compact �
Total � �
Grading: Amount of dirt/fill material being moved (check one): Pending final cut/fill analysis.
0-500 cubic yards 5,000-20,000 cubic yards
500-5,000 cubic .yards Over 20,000 cubic yards(indicate amount)
Note: If fill is being placed ove�r existing bay fill, provide engineering reports which show the effect of
the new fill on the underlying bay mud.
Storm water runoff: Indicate area of site to be covered with impervious surfaces (parking lot paving,
etc.):
Is the area with iinpervious surfaces less than 200 feet away from a wetland, stream, lagoon or bay?
Yes X No
Noise: Describe noise sources and timing of activity generated by your project during construction:
Excavation equipment, cement trucks, forklift
Noise sources generated during operation of facility: None.
Vibration: Will the proposal cause vibration that may affect adjacent properties? Describe any potential
sources of vibration: N�
Exterior Lighting: Please describe any proposed exterior lighting of the facility4: Front property
securitv liqhts. Downli�hts on the structure.
Water: Expected amouni of water usage:
Domestic gal/day Peak use gal/min
Commercial N�A gal/day Peak use gal/min
Expected fire f7ow demand Pending further study gal/min
As per the C.3 regulations set forth by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, please
respond to the following questions:
l. Would the proposed project result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters?
No
4 Refer to City of Burlingame �xterior Illumination Ordinance (No. 1477) regarding requirements which limit exteriar
illumination in both residential ai�d commercial zones.
ENVREV.FRM
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin�ame.or�
2. Would the proposed project resuli in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or
following construction?_ No
3. Would the proposed project result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased
runoff? No
4. Would the proposed project create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns
due to changes in runoff 17ow rates voluines? No
5. Would the proposed project result in increased erosion in its watershed? No
6. Is the project tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Action
Section 303(d) list? If so will it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already
impaired? No
7. Would the proposed project have a potential significant enviromnental impact on surface water
quality, to marine, fresh, or wetland
waters? No
8. Would the proposed project have a potentially significant adverse impact on ground water quality?
No
9. Will the proposed project cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface ar
groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficia] uses? No
10. Will the project impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat?
No
Sewer: Expected daily sewer discharge Equivalent to 19 residential unitsx
Source of wastewater discharge on site (i.e. restrooms, restaurants, laboratory, material processing, etc.)
ENVREV.FRM
c
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org
General:
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Provide attachment to explain nature of all
items checked `yes'.
Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or X
substantial alteration of ground contours.
Yes No
Change in scenic views o�r vistas from existing residential areas or public lands
or roads. X
Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
X
Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
Change in dust, ash, smoke fumes or odars in vicinity.
X
X
Change in bay, lagoon, stream, channel ar groundwater quality or quantity, or
alteration of existing drairiage patterns. X
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity (during
construction and/or during operation). X
Site on filled land or on slope of 10 % or more.
1�
Use or disposal of poteritially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flainmable materials or explosives. X
Substantial change in de�riand for municipal services (police, fire water, sewage)
Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (oil, natural gas, etc.).
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits
present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of
my ability, and that the fac�s, statements, and information presented are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date Signature
X
X
X
ENVREV.PRM
' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BURLINGAME BURL�
Planning Division
City Hall — 501 Primrose Road � PH: (650) 558-7250
Burlingame, Californi� 94010-3997 ,�
FAX: (650) 696-3790
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on
Monday, July 13, 2020 at 7:00 P.M.
Project Location: 128 Lorton Avenue, zoned R-4 (APN: 029-231-210)
Description: Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit and Density Bonus
Concessions and Waivers/Modifications for a new 5-story, 19-unit residential
condominium building with at-grade parking.
Pursuant to the CDC's social distancing guidelines which discourage large public gatherings, the
Planning Commission rrieeting will be held via Zoom, a teleconference platform (see below for access
details). The Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the July 13, 2020 Burlingame Planning
Commission meeting.
To access the meeting by computer:
Go to www.zoom.us/ioin
Meeting ID: 846 2316 9257
Password: 116435
To access the meeting by phone:
Dial 1-669-900-6833
Meeting ID: 846 2316 9257
Password: 116435
Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment(c�burlingame.orq.
Comments submitted during the meeting will be read aloud by staff for the record.
Questions/Comments
If you have any questions about the proposed project or would like to schedule an appointment to view
a hard copy of the application and plans, please contact Ruben Hurin, staff planner for the project, at
rhurinCa�burlinqame.orq or (650) 558-7256. Written comments on the project may also be emailed to
the staff planner prior to the public hearing. We encourage you to review the proposed plans for this
project online now at wvuw.burlinqame.orq/planninqcommission/a.qenda.
Agenda and Staff Reports
The City of Burlingame will publish the meeting agenda at 5 p.m. on Thursday, July 9, 2020. The agenda
will be available online at www.burlinqame.orq/planninqcommission/agenda and will contain the staff
report, related documents, and proposed plans for this application. The agenda will also be posted at
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. A hardcopy of the staff report and related documents
may be obtained upon request to the staff planner (see contact information above).
(p/ease refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Accessibility
In compliance with the i�mericans with Disabilities Act, individuals who require special assistance or a
disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability
and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other
writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact the Planning Division at
pianninqdeqtCa�burlinqame.orq or (650) 558-7250, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, July 13, 2020. Notification
in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility
to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment.
If you challenge the sutiject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about the notice.
Kevin Gardiner, AICP
Community Development Director
Mailed: July 2, 2020
128 Lorton Avenue
300' noticing
APN #: 029.231.210
� ��
�%`•''� � } �'��(�'
.�• �
� ��,- .
�l' �'' `�
a� ��� �� �� �= �
�`u`� ���h������'� ' �}
�
<�,'��' i
�
+� z' `���} �,�=' � 1
�ti �
�4` ' ��
i��
a
l
u'�
i.!�
��
\
��,
(�,;fj
�lr
�/
�� ��� 4:ti� .
v F �?� �" ���:
r?�� �'� �.
-:�� ` � ��.
����
G�
��_
� ,.
4�.�
.�
��i
���
���
.,
,�r.. , r
��at, ,�,�,.,
. ,, .
,..�
v;,,� J.
�=.
l.�C,
��i.
_, `✓�r'
��
�' `��,''�
��
}�
� � �rf ^�'��
�
fl F�� � CJ
�
ci� �,� �� C
�%
��t
��� " � �S
��'� `P �'�,.1 ,�C:.; ,
�.
C��G *�-�,:� '3`�
� , .
� ,.
,'�� � ��ly '*�"' '�? C'�
n � �C:, w3 �� -' �J � �:
G `� �`' ��
4� {:� Q
�; �4, � c� �� �`�
'�
� ��i1 cj-� �
, r� �
128 Lorton Avenue
300' noticing
APN #: 029.231.210
~v "� � (:>`�
. ��' `v � ���4�
t' +�', � t�l
� �.�,� �., , � �,
r� p �� �, �c:�
`�_ 4,� ��,� �iy
U�
� � � ��� � �
�.� , �,i,.� >�� ' �,�;.,.
�,J^
F/j
d� � r4� .-,,,.•,,
I,°�"' (��`
�:� � �
t� � �
� �� ��� � ��y^�
���„ ��
\ �'.
y��
;�,
.f
� „�
� ���� ��°�.� ��� �
�.� �= , �
�� ��.
�' . ��` "y'�
<ti.�
� %x� . � .. � � � , �� ��;
�J � �, � �' � � �
C? � �� � � � ����
�'.. A, �
�— �� Cr"� a ��<:
�",�i '� . a � . '�'�, � (
; � i` Hs'S � <.+ �
� � �, ���� � ��
t� � .� 5�: � � ?� � �, +� �d" F
�� � � � � ����� .
(� ' � , , `
_ t; .. . ,�ti,�' ,r �+�� . � _.
M1Ns `ti : � � �� �,sr
� Y �,. ;_ ,��i"'
� � r, g� � �� �,r �' �'�' ���
�7r �� � f � ,� �`,. �� ,r »x.
� p �:
�, � ,'
v 'b ;�;� h f , ¢^�o �, 'M
� n�� u�' . � # '�
��k� y
��' {";
��,
:�)
r
\,�, f°�
✓
��
,�' `c^
,
t�,�
rj�
��
� � `1i
(��� h � -� " �: � �� p �� �
�^ � 5 �k . `�' "i
r �(;�
�� � � �� � �.A ' ; ' �U �.� -
� T ~f � ��� � �� �
f7 %rtd x.,Y.., � � �" � � L
'�',�y C� (��75� . '� l u'` �i�
Jry�q •V_ �4� 4t �� 1 Y �
�''f�� l'! �+�'' qa.,. ,. . tr„�. ��� . ���,1
r`�� (F� t s � t.„� '*� �X� C7 ',.f!' �
�Y � 'L'
��.,;: �r �y�'
���i;
.,��r
�;,;f� .�i•..� i
rw � I o. i. ri� o. .
. � r..�. Ir :
„�.�� : ��
,� � �� �`} `1�1�``
C� � ``J �'J�
.�
�
�" �
��� � � �4 .� ��� ,�, ���
��� � � ��`.�
� ��" �G`'�� �� Q�
* J 1�
� � �J 4•: i�"V
� ty�� � 4'�3 a
C-, x +";, 4�'i'
pc noticing mtg date: 07.13.20
128 LORTON AVENUE 202 noticed
APN Resident Address City State Zip
City of Burlingame Plannning
Division/RHurin 501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010
29231260 Three Cities Assembly Of God 1120 Bayswater Ave Burlingame CA 94010-4309
29211130 Green Banker Llc 398 Primrose Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105350020 Neuman Bonnie Tr 110 Park Road #102 Burlingame CA 94010
105360270 Starr Nyla Tr 110 Park Road #603 Burlingame CA 94010
29231020 Adams David Tr 35 Grove Hill Ave S San Anselmo CA 94960
105360200 Drucker Edgar F Tr 110 Park Rd Apt 505 Burlingame CA 94010-4339
29232160 Lee Ji Chung & Hui-hsun Ning Trs 20696 Garden Gate Dr Cupertino CA 95014
105350080 Dillard Marion C Tr 110 Park Rd #108 Burlingame CA 94010-0000
29224140 Canales Esther Tr Et AI 180 Kent Ct San Bruno CA 94066
105360120 Marguleas Vivian Tr 2253 Belvedere Cir Roseville CA 95678
108490030 Fontaine Virginia R Tr 316 N EI Camino Real #21 San Mateo CA 94402-0000
108490090 Zanoni Patrick W Tr 750 Edgewood Road San Mateo CA 94402
105360060 Han Yu Zhe 1424 Castillo Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29231200 Penny Charles Nuzum Tr 18170 N 91st Ave Apt 1284 Peoria AZ 85382
29224050 Richanbach David S Tr 233 Ridgeway Rd Hillsborough CA 94010
29211270 Jsr Karp 8 Lp Po Box 271 Burlingame CA 94011
105360240 Gurovich Greg Tr 110 Park Rd Apt 509 Burlingame CA 94010-4343
105360300 Ho Jennifer 180 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105350050 Daggett Jude Tr 110 Park Rd #105 Burlingame CA 94010
29232050 Vielbaum W,alter H Tr 1516 La Mesa Dr Burlingame CA 94010-5922
105360090 Rogers Maryann L Tr Po Box 117369 Burlingame CA 94011
108490120 Gomez Geoffrey L Tr 1801 Davis Dr Burlingame CA 94010-4635
29231050 Grimes Linda A Tr 2120 Market St Ste 105 San Francisco CA 94114
105360030 Loza Carol 110 Park Rd #303 Burlingame CA 94010
108490060 Saxena Neha 1110 Bayswater Ave #106 Burlingame CA 94010
29231210 Lorton Man�gement Corp 14778 Via Campestre Del Mar CA 92014
29224090 Highlands Llc The 611 Veterans Bivd Ste 207 Redwood City CA 94063
105360250 Ellison David Tr 110 Park Rd #601 Burlingame CA 94010
108490150 Dominice Antoinette C Tr 1110 Bayswater Avenue #3 Burlingame CA 94010
105360180 Kash Diana S Tr 110 Park Rd #503 Burlingame CA 94010-4339
29231090 Yoo Kae Suri 119 Highland Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29232060 Murti Kristina Tr 205 De Anza Blvd Ste 96 San Mateo CA 94402
108490010 Sawma Elie M 1110 Bayswater Ave #101 Burlingame CA 94010
105350140 Berenstein Burton R Tr 110 Park Rd # 206 Burlingame CA 94010-4339
108490070 Chepusov Andrey 1110 Bayswater Ave #201 Burlingame CA 94010-4351
105360040 Dinerman Boris 110 Park Rd Apt 304 Burlingame CA 94010
29232030 Damele Richard P 2225 Kent San Mateo CA 94403-0000
29224120 Cavalieri Alda G Tr 643 Spruce Ave South San Fran CA 94080-0000
105350030 Sciutto Richard A Tr 110 W Park Ave #103 Burlingame CA 94010
105360220 Gill Donald J Tr 110 Park Road #507 Burlingame CA 94010
105360280 Harragon Joan Tr 110 Park Rd #604 Burlingame CA 94010-4343
105350110 Ho Jennifer Tr 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105360150 Horwitz Vic:tor Tr 110 Park Rd Apt 406 Burlingame CA 94010-4339
29224150 339 Sc Cupertino Llc 1534 Plaza Ln #258 Burlingame CA 94010
pc noticing mtg date: 07.13.20
128 LORTON AVENUE 202 noticed
108490180 Iskiw Maria Tr 549 4th Ave San Bruno CA 94066-4511
29231120 Neizman Ed 107 Highland Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105360010 Roff Molly Tr 110 Park Rd #301 Burlingame CA 94010
105360070 Janney Mary H Tr 630 No. San Mateo Dr San Mateo CA 94401
108490040 Maniscalco Anthony R Tr 2816 Mariposa Dr Burlingame CA 94010
29224060 1201 Howard Avenue Llc 18802 Bardeen Ave Irvine CA 92612
29224130 Lorton Investment Properties 1625 EI Camino Real Ste #3 Belmont CA 94002
105360230 Raggio Mary Jane 110 W Park Ave #508 Burlingame CA 94010-4343
105360310 Soss Marian H Tr Po Box 5197 San Mateo CA 94402
105350060 Park Plaza Towers Owners Assoc 110 Park Rd Ste 600 Burlingame CA 94010-4347
105350120 Fricke Helen Tr 110 Park Rd 204 Burlingame CA 94010-4347
29224160 Franco Jose 1532 Los Montes Drive Burlingame CA 94010-4311
105360160 Beyer Mona N Trust Est Of 1822 Lackland Dr Alamo CA 94507
108490130 Wang Xin 31 Garden St Redwood City CA 94063
105360100 Mokri Ali M Tr 110 Park Road #401 Burlingame CA 94010
105360020 Faussner Robert E Tr Po Box 219 San Bruno CA 94066
29231190 Delija Michael J Tr 120 Lorton Ave #6 Burlingame CA 94010-4363
29224100 Highlands Llc: The 611 Veterans Blvd Ste 207 Redwood City CA 94063
29211140 Moore Elizabeth 1150 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105350090 Wang Yue 530 Elcamino Real #100 Burlingame CA 94010
29204120 Ichinyosha Iriternational Usa Inc 1200 Howard Ave Ste 203 Burlingame CA 94010
29231030 1115 Howard Properties Llc 2475 Pacific Ave San Francisco CA 94115
29232170 101 California Drive Llc 3 California Drive Burlingame CA 94010
105360130 Colman Katherine L Tr 110 Park Rd #404 Burlingame CA 94010-4339
105360190 Hamilton Joseph F Tr 263 Crescent Avenue Burlingame CA 94010-4339
108490160 Fournier Hugo Bernard 1110 Bayswater #304 Burlingame CA 94010
105350150 Casanova Lynne Anne Tr 110 Park Road #207 Burlingame CA 94010
108490100 Wiegand John P 1110 Bayswater Ave Apt 2 Burlingame CA 94010-4351
108490020 Mobley Deborah K 1110 Bayswater Ave Apt 1 Burlingame CA 94010-4349
29231100 Highland Ave Burlingame Llc Po Box 60970 Palo Alto CA 94306
105360050 Gott Kimberly A 5939 Mazuela Dr Oakland CA 94611
29224110 Merritt Terrence Tr P O Box 1451 San Carlos CA 94070
29232040 Vielbaum Walter H Tr Et AI 1516 La Mesa Dr Burlingame CA 94010-3702
29211150 1166 Howa�d Properties Uc 2475 Pacific Ave San Francisco CA 94115
105350040 Gott Kimberly A 5939 Mazuela Dr Oakland CA 94611
105360290 Sand Liese Tr 110 Park Rd Unit 605 Burlingame CA 94010
105350100 Kapkin Sant:ina M Tr 110 Park Rd Apt 202 Burlingame CA 94010-4339
29231040 Tatoian Hagop Tr 111 Sloop Court Foster City CA 94404
105360140 Degraff Steven 110 Park Road #405 Burlingame CA 94010
108490170 Devoulin Nick K Tr 401 Clover Springs Dr Cloverdale CA 95425
108490110 Barnes Robert W 1110 Bayswater Ave #205 Burlingame CA 94010-4351
105360080 Schreurs Cynthia L Tr 110 Park Rd #308 Burlingame CA 94010
29231110 Britton Kerry B 1345 Mission St San Francisco CA 94103-2622
108490050 Bondar Lolita 1110 Bayswater Ave # 105 Burlingame CA 94010
29224070 Franco Ma�ina R Tr Et AI 78 Cumberland St San Francisco CA 94110
105350010 Zakula Millie 645 Gould Terrace Hermosa Beac CA 90254
105360260 Gish Martha J Tr 360 Malcolm Ave Belmont CA 94002
pc noticing mtg date: 07.13.20
128 LORTON AVENUE 202 noticed
105360170 Tsai Chaolun 3208 Caruth Blvd Dallas TX 75225
29231010 1199 Howar� Llc Po Box 26020 Oklahoma City OK 73126-0020
29224300 The Tub Building Llc 50 Country Club Drive Hillsborough CA 94010
108490140 Lazarov Ivan 1110 Bayswater Ave Apt 3 Burlingame CA 94010-4352
105350070 Zafran Toshiko Takeda Tr 110 Park Rd #107 Burlingame CA 94010-4338
105360110 Peri Irma N 1"r 1131 Shoreline Dr San Mateo CA 94404
105350130 Rodriguez Elizabeth F Tr 110 Park Rd 205 Burlingame CA 94010-0000
29224020 Shamlian Phillip H Tr Et AI 32 Calafia Ct San Rafael CA 94903
108490080 Reed Thoma:s B& Patricia M Trs 2916 Dolores Way Burlingame CA 94010-5719
29231080 Damele Richard P Tr 2225 Kent San Mateo CA 94403-0000
29231260 Occupant 1120 Bayswater Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29211130 Occupant 1140 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105350020 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105360270 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
29231020 Occupant 1129 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105360200 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
29232160 Occupant 177 California Dr Burlingame CA 94010
105350080 Occupant 110 Park Rd 108 Burlingame CA 94010
29224140 Occupant 101 Lorton Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105360120 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
108490030 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 103 Burlingame CA 94010
108490090 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 203 Burlingame CA 94010
105360060 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
29231200 Occupant 124 Lorton Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29224050 Occupant 1205 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29211270 Occupant 1100 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105360240 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105360300 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
29224270 Occupant 135 Lorton Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105350050 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105360090 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
108490120 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 206 Burlingame CA 94010
29231050 Occupant 1101 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105360030 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
108490060 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 106 Burlingame CA 94010
29231210 Occupant 128 Lorton Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29224090 Occupant 129 Lorton Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105360250 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
108490150 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 303 Burlingame CA 94010
105360180 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
29231090 Occupant 119 Highland Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29232060 Occupant 123 California Dr Burlingame CA 94010
108490010 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 101 Burlingame CA 94010
105350140 Occupant 110 Park Rd 206 Burlingame CA 94010
108490070 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 201 Burlingame CA 94010
105360040 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
29224120 Occupant 117 Lorton Ave Burlingame CA 94010
pc noticing mtg date: 07.13.20
128 LORTON AVENUE 202 noticed
105350030 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105360220 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105360280 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105350110 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105360150 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
29224150 Occupant 1206 Bayswater Ave Burlingame CA 94010
108490180 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 306 Burlingame CA 94010
29231120 Occupant 107 Highland Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105360010 Occupant 110 Park Rd 301 Burlingame CA 94010
105360070 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
108490040 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 104 Burlingame CA 94010
29224060 Occupant 1201 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29224130 Occupant 111 Lorton Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105360230 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105360310 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105350060 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105350120 Occupant 110 Park Rd 204 Burlingame CA 94010
29224160 Occupant 1208 Bayswater Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105360160 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
108490130 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 301 Burlingame CA 94010
105360100 Occupant 110 Park Rd 401 Burlingame CA 94010
105360020 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
29231060 Occupant 161 Highland Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29231190 Occupant 120 Lorton Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29224100 Occupant 125 Lorton Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29211140 Occupant 1150 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105350090 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
29204120 Occupant 1200 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29231030 Occupant 1115 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29232170 Occupant 100 California Dr Burlingame CA 94010
105360130 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105360190 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
108490160 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 304 Burlingame CA 94010
105350150 Occupant 110 Park Rd 207 Burlingame CA 94010
108490100 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 204 Burlingame CA 94010
108490020 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 102 Burlingame CA 94010
29231100 Occupant 115 Highland Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105360050 Occupant 110 Park Rd 305 Burlingame CA 94010
29224110 Occupant 121 Lorton Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29232040 Occupant 124 Highland Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29211150 Occupant 1166 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105350040 Occupant 110 Park Rd 104 Burlingame CA 94010
105360290 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105350100 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
29231040 Occupant 1111 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105360140 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
108490170 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 305 Burlingame CA 94010
�c noticing mtg date: 07.13.20
128 LORTON AVENUE 202 noticed
108490110 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 205 Burlingame CA 94010
105360080 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
29231110 Occupant 111 Highland Ave Burlingame CA 94010
108490050 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 105 Burlingame CA 94010
29224070 Occupant 137 Lorton Ave Burlingame CA 94010
105350010 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105360260 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105360170 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
29231010 Occupant 1199 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
29224300 Occupant 1209 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
108490140 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 302 Burlingame CA 94010
105350070 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105360110 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
105350130 Occupant 110 Park Rd Burlingame CA 94010
29224020 Occupant 1245 Howard Ave Burlingame CA 94010
108490080 Occupant 1110 Bayswater Ave # 202 Burlingame CA 94010
29231080 Occupant 145 Highland Ave Burlingame CA 94010
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A.FFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES
STATE OF rALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO )
Abiqail Verqel de Dios , being duly sworn, deposes and says:
that she is a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18-years, that acting
for the City of Burlingame on the 2nd Day of July, 2020 deposited in the
United States Post Office a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, a copy ofwhich
is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the persons
listed on the addresses attached hereto and made a part hereof, to wit:
that :�aid persons are the owners of said property who are
entitled to NOTICE OF HEARING pursuant to the Ordinances
of the City of Burlingame that on said day there was regular
communication by United States Mail to the addresses
attached hereto.
128 Lorton Avenue
202— 300' Notices
, �
�'� �� SA�`
� 'y
q
.� , � �,�
�� _. �
��m� � a
<, ��;
'9`L / F
Date: 09/01 /2020
C�FFICE OF
aSSESSOR-COUNTY CLERK-
FiECORDER & ELECTIONS
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
To: CITY OF BURLINGAME, PLANNING DIVISION
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA. 94010
MARK CHURCH
ASSESSOR-COUN'I Y CLLRK-
RF.,C;ORDF,R c4L CH1F,F �I.,F,CTIONS OFFICF,R
Final Posting Confirmation
for Environmental Impact Reports
Subject
�
Return of �nvironmental Documents Filed and Posted for 30 days.
Public Resources Code Section 21092.3
The attached document(s), File Number 127883
was received, filed and a copy posted with the County Clerk on 07/29/2020
and remained posted for thirty calendar days.
Diana Siron
Deputy Clerk on behalf of Mark Church
SS-12 Posting Confirmation Letter for Environmental Impact Reports
555 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063
P 650.363.4500 F 650.599.7458 email countyclerk@smcacre.org web www.smcacre.org
�• •-
�,•-.? State of California - Department of Fish and Wildlife
' 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT
DFW 753.5a (REV. 12/01/19) Previously DFG 753.5a
k �,
d�,.�¢ ������w
;EC;EIPT NUMBER:
41 — 07/29/202i — 1559
SEE INSTRUC110NS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY.
LEADAGENCY LEADAGENCY EMAIL
City of Burlingame, Planning Division
COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING
�San Mateo ������
5 iAI t c;LtARINGHOUSE NUMBER (Ifapplicable)
DATE
07/29/2020
DOCUMENT NUMBER
127883
NK���cr Tir�E
128 Lorton Avenue Project
PROJECTAPPLICANT NAME
PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS
ROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL
ITY STATE
PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box)
✓Q Local Public Agency � School District � Other Special District
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
❑ Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
❑ Mitigated/Negative Declaration (MND)(ND)
❑ Certified Regulatory Program (CRP) document - payment due directly to CDFW
� Exempt from fee
� Notice of Exemption (attach)
❑ CDFW No Effect Determination (attach)
❑ Fee previously paid (attach previously issued cash receipt copy)
'HONE NUMBER
� �
CODE
� State Agency
$3,343.25 $
$2,406.75 $
$1,136.50 $
❑ Water Right Application or Petition Fee (State Water Resources Control Board only) $850.00 $
0 County documentary handling fee $
❑ Other $
PAYMENT METHOD:
❑ Cash ❑ Credit � Check ❑ Other TOTAL RECEIVED $
(
SIGNATURE
X
� Private Entity
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 11
1 11
-
1 11
-
4GENCY OF FILING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE
DIANA SIRON/DEPUTY CLERK
ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY -CDFIN/ASB COPY - LEAD AGENCY COPY - COUNTY CLERK DFW 753.5a (Rev. 12012019)
' � �u�a � v�u�
Notice of Exemption
To: Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044, Room 113
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
County Clerk
COunty Of: San Mateo
555 County Center
Appendix E
From' (PubliC AgenCy): City of Burlingame, Planning Division
501 Primrose Road � � � J �-r� �y
Burlingame, CA. 94010 SAN �AaTFn ��i IN'fY
(Address) ,IUI. 2 g 2�720
Redwood City, CA, 94063 i4�1�K (i�Ui"�Lr�"�, (r011(1 (p�i��@At�'{(
�J r �.�II'1��111VIM
Project Title:
128 Lorton Avenue Project t�couw Cier�
Project Applicant: Pacific West Communities, 430 East State Street, Suite 100, Eagle, ID. 83616
Project Location - Specific:
128 Lorton Avenue, Burlingame, CA, 94010 (APN 028-231-210)
Project Location - City: Burlingame Project Location - County: San Mateo
Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:
The Project would c:onstruct a five-story residential building with 19 residential units, two of which would
be affordable, and reserved for moderate-income households. In addition, an enclosed at-grade parking
garage on the ground floor would provide 17 vehicle parking spaces using a finro-level stacking system.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Burlingame
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Community DevelopmenUPlanning Division (Burlingame)
Exempt Status: (check one):
❑ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
❑ Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
❑ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
■ Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Class 32 Infill Exemption (Section 15332)
❑ Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
Reasons why project is exempt:
The Project (a) is cansistent with applicable general plan designation/zoning and all policies; (b) is no more
than 5 acres and surrounded by urban uses; (c) has no value as habitat;(d) would not result in significant
effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; (e) can be adequately served by all required utilities
and public services. In addition, the Project would not trigger any of the exceptions in Section 15300.2.
Lead Agency
Contact Person: Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager Area CodelTelephone/Extension: 650-558-7256
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Nas a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? ❑ Yes ❑ No
�� 0 11 r �
Signature: - ��' Date: 7��` �2 � Title: pi a�'+ i^ Ma^c� e�'
�Signed by Lead Agency ❑ Signed by Applicant
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR:
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code.
Revised 201 l
0
County of San Mateo
Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder
Mark Church
555 County Center
Redwood City, CA, 94063
Finalization 2020054727
7/29/20 10:22 am
022 89
Item Title
1 EIR Administrative Fee
Document ID Amount
DOC# 2020-000138 50.00
Total 50.00
Payment Type Amount
Check tendered 50.00
# 015689
Amount Due 0.00
THANK YOU
PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT
FOR YOUR RECORDS
CEQA CLASS 32 INFILL EXEMPTION
1�$ LORTON AVENUE PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:
City of Burlingame
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Contact: Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager
(6 �0) 558-7256
PREPARED BY:
ICF
201 Mission Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94105
Contact: Leo Mena
(415) 677-7170
July 2020
�;
_,
��CF
ICF. Z020. CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption, 128 Lorton Avenue Project. July. (1CF 00370.19.)
San Francisco, CA. Prepared for City of Burlingame, Burlingame CA.
Contents
Section1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................1-1
Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 1-2
ExistingSetting ........................................................................................................................................... 1-2
LandUse and Zoning .................................................................................................................................. 1-2
ProjectDescription ............................................................................................................................................. 1-4
BuildingDesign and Lighting ....................................................................................................................... 1-4
Landscaping................................................................................................................................................ 1-4
Remediation..................................................................................................................................................... 1-10
Construction Schedule and Phasing ................................................................................................................. 1-10
Construction E:quipment and Staging ........................................................................................................ 1-11
Section2 CEQA Exemption ...............................................................................................................................2-1
Class32 (Infill DevE�lopment) .............................................................................................................................. 2-1
Exemptions......................................................................................................................................................... 2-1
City of Burlingame — Standard Conditions of Approval ...................................................................................... 2-2
Section 3 CEQA Exemption Checklist ..................................................................................................................3-1
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 3-1
Criterion Section 15332(a): General Plan and Zoning Consistency ................................................................ 3-1
Criterion Section 15332(b): Project Location, Size, and Context ................................................................. 3-2
Criterion Section 15332(c): Endangered, Rare, or Threatened Species ...................................................... 3-2
Criterion Section 15332(d): Traffic .............................................................................................................. 3-3
Setting.................................................................................................................................................. 3-3
TripGeneration .................................................................................................................................... 3-3
VehicleMiles Traveled ......................................................................................................................... 3-4
RoadwaySegments .............................................................................................................................. 3-4
Accessand Circulation .......................................................................................................................... 3-4
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................................................... 3-4
Transit.................................................................................................................................................. 3-5
Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................................................... 3-5
Criterion Section 15332(d): Noise ............................................................................................................... 3-6
Overviewof Noise and Sound .............................................................................................................. 3-6
RegulatorySetting ................................................................................................................................ 3-9
Criterion Section 15332(d): Air Quality ..................................................................................................... 3-19
RegulatorySetting .............................................................................................................................. 3-19
Criterion Section 15332(d): Water Quality ................................................................................................ 3-26
ExistingConditions ............................................................................................................................. 3-26
ProjectConditions .............................................................................................................................. 3-26
Criterion Section 15332(e): Utilities and Public Services .......................................................................... 3-28
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exempfion July 2020
i
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
Contents
Section 4 Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist .................................................................................4-1
Criterion 15300.2(a): Location .................................................................................................................... 4-1
Criterion 15300.2(b): Cumulative Impact .................................................................................................... 4-1
Criterion 15300.2(c): Significant Effect ........................................................................................................ 4-2
Criterion 15300.2(d): Scenic Highway ......................................................................................................... 4-2
Criterion 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites ............................................................................................. 4-2
Criterion 15300.2(f): Historical Resources .................................................................................................. 4-5
Section5 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................5-1
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Transportation Impact Analysis
Traffic Noise Screening Tables
Supporting Air Quality Information
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption July 2020
ii
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICf 00370.19
City of Burlingame
Contents
Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ..................................................................................3-8
Construction Equipment Reference Noise Levels for Proposed Project Construction ...............................3-15
Leq Construction Noise Levels by Phase (dBA) ............................................................................................3-16
Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Guidelines .......................................................................3-18
Vibration Annayance Potential Criteria Guidelines ....................................................................................3-19
Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Project Construction (pounds per day) ................................................3-21
Summary of Health Risk Assessment for DPM and PM2.5 Emissions during Construction .......................3-24
Summary of Risks and Hazards from nearby TAC Sources .........................................................................3-25
Summary of Cortese List Search Results for 128 Lorton Avenue, Burlingame, California ...........................4-3
Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ProjectLocation ............................................................................................................................................1-3
SitePlan — Grnund Level ...............................................................................................................................1-5
Site Plan — Second- through Fourth-Level Floor Plans .................................................................................1-6
SouthwestElevation .....................................................................................................................................1-7
NorthwestElevation .....................................................................................................................................1-8
Rendering.....................................................................................................................................................1-9
City of Burlingame Outdoor Noise-Level Planning Criteria ........................................................................3-10
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption July 2020
iii
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations
2040 General Plan
AERMOD
APN
ASTM
BAAQM D
Bay
BM Ps
BPD
BSD
C/CAG
CaIEEMod
CaIEPA
CalRecyle
Caltrans
CAPs
CCFD
CEQA
CEqA Guidelines
City
CMP
CNDDB
CNEL
CO
CRHR
dB
dBA
DPH
DPM
DTSC
DUs
EIR
EPA
ESA
gpd
gsf
HI
Envision Burlingame
Air Quality Dispersion Modeling
assessor's parcel number
American Society for Testing and Materials
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
San Francisco Bay
best management practices
Burlingame Police Department
Burlingame School District
City/County Association of Governments
California Emissions Estimator Model
California Environmental Protection Agency
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
California Department of Transportation
criteria air pollutants
Central County Fire Department
California Environmental Quality Act
California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines
City of Burlingame
Congestion Management Program
California Natural Diversity Database
community noise equivalent level
carbon monoxide
California Register of Historical Resources
decibel
A-weighted decibel
Department of Public Health
diesel particulate matter
Department of Toxic Substance Control
dwelling units
environmental impact report
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Site Assessment
gallons per day
gross square feet
Hazard Index
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption July 2020
iv
128lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
HRA
HVAC
IS/MND
�dn
�eq
�max
LOS
M EIR
mgd
MRP
Municipal Code
NOx
NPDES
NRHP
OEHHA
PMio
PMz.s
PPV
P roj ect
Regional Water Board
ROGs
SamTrans
SCAs
sf
SFBAAB
SFO
SFPUC
SMUHSD
SWRCB
TACs
TALK
TDM
TIA
UWMP
VMT
WWTP
µg/ms
Contents
health risk assessment
heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning
initial study/mitigated negative declaration
day-night level
equivalent sound level
maximum sound level
level of service
maximally exposed individual receptor
million gallons per day
Municipal Regional Permit
City of Burlingame Municipal Code
nitrogen oxides
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Register of Historic Places
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
aerodynamic resistance diameters equal to or less than 10 microns
aerodynamic resistance diameters equal to or less than 2.5 microns
peak particle velocity
128 Lorton Avenue Project
Regional Water Quality Control Board
reactive organic gases
San Mateo County Transit District
Standard Conditions of Approval
square feet
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
San Mateo Union High School District
State Water Resources Control Board
toxic air contaminants
Teaching and Assessing Language for Kids
travel demand management
transportation impact analysis
Urban Water Management Plan
vehicle miles traveled
wastewater treatment plant
micrograms per cubic meter
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption July 2020
v
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
This page intentionally left blank.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption
128 Lorton Avenue Project
Contents
July 2020
ICF 0037019
Section 1
Project Description
1. Project Title:
128 Lorton Avenue Project
2. Lead Agency/Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of Burlingame
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Contact: Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 558-7'L56
4. Project Location:
128 Lorton Avenue, Burlingame, CA (assessor's parcel number [APN]: 028-231-210)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Pacific West Communities
Attn: Chris Grant
430 East State Street, Suite 100
Eagle, ID 83616
6. General Plan Designation:
2040 General Plan - Downtown Specific Plan
Downtown Specific Plan - R-4 Incentive District
7. Zoning:
R-4 (R-4 Inc�ntive District Subarea)
8. Requested Permits
• Design review for construction of a five-story, 19-unit residential development, with at-grade
parking on first floor (City of Burlingame Municipal Code [Municipal Code] Section 25.57).
• Condominium permit for construction of a residential condominium building.
• Density bonus to allow development concessions and waivers/modifications to
development standards to facilitate the provision of affordable housing (e.g., concessions
and waivers/modifications regarding building setback, lot coverage, building height,
common open space, private open space, and off-street parking) (Municipal
Code Section 25.63).
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1 1 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
Introduction
Project Description
The 128 Lorton Avenue Project (Project) involves one 0.172-acre site within the Burlingame
Downtown Specific Plan area. The site currently includes a 1,350-gross-square-foot (gs� residential
building, a 2,590 gsf residential building, and minimal landscaping. The two structures provide a total
of four residential units; both were built in 1912. Upon Project implementation, one new building
would be developed with approximately 28,071 gsf of residential space for 19 units and 17 vehicle
parking spaces.
Existing Setting
The Project site is a single lot within the downtown area of the city of Burlingame, approximately
0.3 mile northwest of the Burlingame Caltrain station.1 The majority of the lot is covered by impervious
surfaces in the form of pavement, concrete, and buildings. Vegetation within the parcel is limited to a
front lawn area and small decorative shrubs. A small street tree is located between the sidewalk and
Lorton Avenue. There are no trees on the Project site. The Project site is bound by public parking to
the north and west (Lot N) (a five-level public parking garage is currently under construction); a
residential multi-story building to the east; and Lorton Avenue, a multi-story residential building, and
another surface parking lot (Lot F) to the south. Figure 1 depicts the location of the Project site.
Land Use and Zoning
On January 7, 2019, the Ciry of Burlingame (City) adopted Envision Burlingame (2040 General Plan),
which updated the previous general plan and identified a vision, goals, policies, and a land use
designation that will provide direction through 2040. The 2040 General Plan notes that the land use
designation for the Project site is Downtown Specific Plan. Under this designation, permitted uses and
development intensities are defined. Therefore, the Downtown Specific Plan continues to serve as a
policy document and implementation guide for development and planning decisions in the downtown
area. The Downtown Specific Plan sets forth strategies for change as well as regulatory policies to
guide and govern future development within downtown Burlingame. The Downtown Specific Plan
details proposed land uses and their distribution, infrastructure improvements, development
standards, and the implementation measures required to achieve the goals of the plan. The Downtown
Specific Plan is consistent with the general land use provisions contained in the 2040 General Plan.
The Project site is entirely within Block 24B of the Downtown Specific Plan, which is also within the
R-4 Incentive District planning area. Land uses for this district are predominantly high-density, multi-
family residential uses. Areas here are regulated by R-4 zoning standards, consistent with R-4 properties
citywide. To encourage high-density residential uses within the R-4 Incentive District, buildings or
structures greater than 55 feet in height are allowed with receipt of a conditional use permit, in accordance
with Municipal Code Section 25.29.060(f�; buildings in excess of 75 feet are not permitted within the R-4
Incentive District,
1 For the purposes of this analysis, true north is Project northeast, with Howard Avenue running in a north-south
direction and Lorton Avenue running in an east-west direction.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1 2 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
�v ��.�;n_ � �^a:.� , . � - �l' ,�4 "� r ;�;.. � ` :� �� q . � �.... ' � � ft ���
. •
n ��9q
A 3 � �I f�6 . ��. - �� 4 J �
�". �� 4 '�v±�_. } R ` �i 9 �0 �''ur,. � s' �� �� �\N .�� r a�"��� �`��� � � . \ .Y .
c ti � � � �� ' ' q �✓ "�i >1 � „�' n' � .
� �1` ir,!, ,�'a ''k �� } '° �` � � � ,� �. \ �� ���' a � ,�� �y �
� +, � �y y \ � �. � �St�t "`5'"\\ �
�i � '�I'� �� ��'� � � ,!.� �.s �4Q� _. .
h. ��'• `�� ''•"' ���:.laj��� �� � �3. ' d�w, 3 ' ,�a s:y� r�,. � q ...
,j`\ , , . � ;� '� ` s .. ,�s. "�, �•.� �''*,� I . � � \ , �. /
_ .�t � f�s , ,y . ��
V _. . ,� � a�p� ' , `3�\' � � „m � ro;�� � �%'' � ��,+. '� ��",1' -'�,,� ': � �� y�� � � F�' y y �`,�
s +�,� / 1
�� � � � �� ��. _ � �' i .f a`'� ��� 's �� d .�'�, „�� � �� �� �� �' , ��'`ow � `"';s,^.sx'� � sY e r �A � ;i� � � /� ����`�
�� '�' w , � � �� k �_Ji' �. �. a
^' � < }y , 1 "�,e,�9 � � � ;r :���� : .s J ���7�� y �� ,,�, ' �
`
� �a,�� �- � ,� ,-�r � � ,�, ` ' � _�, �,� �c "� ,�
� � ,r.�. � '� r,� � � ��,: "xv' �� "'�' y � �/'� `�Cs;r �; . - �, "" . . . �� "��� � : � �� ��� ;�J�
. - , , � �� �
, �
. sg� . > .!� �,'v �` ,� �b �. � � ♦ .. ,�t k. .
� . �
_
,
�.. Q� �`.,�. � �.� � . �f i���' .�. . . ��+` �E��i-7J �` ����-�:. ��� �� "��.
\ ,�� t ` ~ �� �
e. � �., � ����.� . �.�' *. ,., � �� • � .� . ;�,� �Q I�'�.:,.-* ,} �'*� ti � . �
� .� .,� " A ��. � ° ''.� � > _�,,y�si� ;� ,, t., i ,.-� . /�r�jy-� ��� � .� �v� Y .
� , 3, '1'�` y �a*� ✓".1'�.Y l , ffi � . � � � � ^" /J^�,„* 'O./�j�� 4 � '� � \ ,Z i��� �, . Vi
a �f� �.,, , ``�`�� f��..��` � t'� '� i \ . 4 . -.Y .�.,.,X . . +r. � a8 �� �'{ ���ai',�� � "Y ,.R'�� /.\�'� ' �'�
:�' ,`f,b \ � � `�'��... � � �� ��� '"�e`!�F ,�,`. j,�,"+'f � ':4n`'�.� �l �r.`�� qyY �� yc� �.
��/ � , �` p� .� ! " ,o'�" . . �' • � � .�jr
Pyr "�l� '� t`" t � , ,R ,��. . - 9 y � f' '� 3� �� . 1 �. � ""�� � .
� � �� �� � ��� � , ��. �'�'s, �t. \\\ . .�" ,� .`�� � , . �i �..Y�
� �\�.� a. \� �� .�,,� >.+..:'4 ���t j,, `1 j.'..� £ � � ��,�� � � ,�� �' y } j �Y?� � � �- �9q�
� � � fYO � �� �� ' �. v5'� �y � \ _ . � , � ��'. � �
� � . ? 9 / \ l '. � .
�
� � �`�e�y.'� � ��� �,`` �'� �j:a ��M� . �, �• � ` � ,. e ' �3� b'T� J �' ie "T`� 3,
� � f � �, " � /
`, ; •.� , '� ' �- a�'
� �� i
� �,; ��, � �*P�a . �r , � � e ,�� � , i�.���� ,h a��� ��� �"�,,�, � �,: 4� "'� ���r �.v �� /n� ,. / � �pa9� �Ji.p. �,
a ', a
;, :/
�
� a�` , �, �»g� � � �,
���;;y. _:.�'�. �. �'+'��rp`�`� �\��' #F' �,�"'�..r�. � . �\� �"��.��� `�;�`+� . � � �?� M'DF � .. -x������z� �7 . .� � �Xs�.3�i7"����.. .
. ` . � � �.n ' . .
. . �,4 � v �y r �;� � � y j�{}j�j �°' r1' y� ^`f '�ISy "�17A
� � � , � � "�' � � i�i *� r . � ,. a N �'+��++ ��',:; �� . �Y � �+,. ' ..� ��t,.. �'
t � � � \ ° �' � �- g� � �'�.� �► �. ��� �
,*..� ,i yy, s �. ;�.R� �, k�� ,t '• .� � �'.x�a��,,,' �` ,,�i�� q3l�` �' ��\/(�
,,S � s� y�i °� . i':��.' "1 al� o � , a - � . ��N' f a'f,J>.�' • 4`'`".� � /_
�. .c> 4r' ��\. ::�� . � ��'� " �� / \ �'.R,. � �':. .: ey;;:, e � . q?,j. . � ,� ��,t .
. ."
Ye��� s .. ' •� � � � � �.'� �;t � � ry �� �\ � �.. � �i ��4 �'._ . \'\ � ,�. ; .. � !:� r�
�?'T � � � � o �, � '�.���.d" M�. $� �- ta 1 � � � .,�� q a
� � %: � 3� ��, � � .'. ���, .' � ;�_ u ���A%,(L �, �- t
�,, < A� �, Pro ect Site � �` `��� � �'f�` � �
`� �-�� , . :i °� o. �P''•,. � �. �i 1 ,-���''�• \("�, 3' �i,��,�p.'$�4' �� „g.
a, „
�, ,
�� .. ,.r`'✓� 9 ,'� Fr� ..,. �'1►` O ��`'�� �` ., j�� � ���'� l�'�'.Si�%'� "�a+�a�. P
. � , � ., �. .�. _\ � � ��� .�� �� `K�-' � � ,, � � • ''�, �" <• ��., ��� �'�� s� " �/"'�n "'� �����. �,}',�yq�j�
��- '/� �ti �` , ,� .. �I
� � � � ! :'�. 'i � ^���\ . ee.� .,.w► � �� ��'� n *,_� � .�- :4 ':�1 .E++_,{S � � ` 1 q��a A��.� �„�'" �`i
� , .t � � � ;�;5' \� s � 'o yT'. �.� � rA � ./ ..� s ♦ �. f�'av1( . � '��� . �.
.,..
,� , s ' .,Y ��
. 9 �'•�j ;✓� t � ��� � � �' � •� ��c;. � . ; ��'4 ! � \ . : I
J , �, � ., � ; ��, " � �rt. i� ;�. ����C ,
� �.
�
�. .
�. ,� '
�� ..,. , , � �. ,� ; � � ,,� � ,,,
� �� , ., �
. � .. .��
, �., ,.
;y� ��, �a* '� , � , , � � • , \���' �,> �, � � � �
� � � � f � � � �'' ��,� � �i �`'�
� <- �
�� ��"A►� � ;�a�> c� ���, ���� .�,� „�' �I� '�� `° %e a,'�� ��,��� `� � � ��i
- , e , : � - • .... -.t
�
, , _ a , �.� ,� � � .
... � , , ,'� °�
� �:�� , ��t�;� � �; �. ,� ,;� � ¢� . ° ,� r � �� Q ;t . .��' t
,� <� .
�
F . �, s� � , '� _ �� ��. �� � � =' a � �`�� �'�;
s� � ��M�,�~ a� .t ��'�; � �� f ��,,r� �, _ � ��`` � ����'. ��
: `'+ :; s � � #�? � �`" � r� 7�+�► . '�� . � �'k:, � 4 t �'' �✓ �3" � � t �r ± � � ' �
��• �,�. �� � � ��1 . A ` � � '� .�,.�
9Lt` gp ',�/ f?* 3 �k fw ��v .�, . �' v!� , "s .�•
ir i���'6` � . „ A 4 �` �.�E � o , � � d" � • / `�'�. .�� � ��rx��t�:"#� � pi" ;, !s� S
���� .� 1f . .. r �� . �. -...
� � ,> �' � � � � �\� '* ' `?�'�'r a / ,�" � ' o zoo aoo N
' :� . - ' `�2 �•^� . e � ' . a� �% ' �
,, _ i , ., ��_,� A
` 1 ,,f`�:' " Note: Lot F and Lot N are not a part of the Project and Feet
�r.� >
' e�, �- '' �ry`��,,.�'> are induded here for information purposes only.
, � _
(�� �� � � .�,., �' � .; Image: Google Inc 2018.
,
�' _. _ . ,. -. - , �.
a � . ; . :�> , ., � .
• , t � � - _� ,.. ` � ,�,:q ,. , . � - : -
Figure 1
�'CF Project Location
City of Burlingame
Project Description
Project Description
All existing features associated with the Project site would be removed, including the two residential
buildings. The Project would include construction of a five-story residential building (56 feet, six inches
tall) with 19 residential units, two of which would be affordable (two one-bedroom units) and reserved
for moderate-income households. In addition, an enclosed at-grade parking garage on the ground floor
would provide 17 vehicle parking spaces using a two-level stacking system.2 The housing units would
include 11 one-bedroom units (675 gs�, seven two-bedroom units (950 to 1,150 gsf�, and one three-
bedroom unit (1,528 gsf�. Figures 2 through 6 provide proposed site plans, elevations, and a rendering.
Given its proximity to a major transit stop (the Burlingame Caltrain station), the applicant would be
required to include only 14 parking spaces as part of the Project.3 Therefore, the 17 parking spaces
proposed as part of the Project exceeds the required minimum number of parking spaces. Guests at the
proposed building would be expected to use the Lot N parking garage. The parking garage would be
accessed from Lorton Avenue. A staircase and elevator would also provide access to the parking area.
Refuse storage and electrical rooms would be located in designated areas adjacent to the parking area
on the ground floor.
Building Design and Lighting
The building exterior would consist of cement, stone veneer, plaster trim and cornices, and painted
metal awnings. The building would also include glass entry doors, fiberglass-framed windows, and a
metal gate at the garage entrance. Balconies would be provided for five of the 19 units; three
balconies would be located on the south side of the building (one each on the podium, second, and
fourth levels), and two balconies would be located on the west side of the building (on the podium
level). The balconies would range in size from 99 to 308 square feet (s� and would have glass
guardrails. Downward-facing security lighting would be installed on the street side of the building.
Figures 4, 5, and 6 show what the new building would look like.
The parking garage would front onto Lorton Avenue, which would function as both an ingress and
egress point. The parking garage would be screened using design features similar to those on the
exterior of the residential floors above.
Landscaping
Although there are no trees on the Project site, one street tree adjacent to Lorton Avenue would be
removed and replaced with two new street trees with 24-inch boxes. Overall, the Project would plant
four red Japanese laceleaf maple trees (24-inch boxes) as well as a combination of shrubs, perennials,
vines, and ground cover throughout the site. The Project would also include flow-through planters
that would treat stormwater. The Project would comply with the requirements of the Model Water-
Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
z The parking facility would use CityLift Puzzle vehicle stacking system or a similar system, with some parking
spaces stacked up to two vehicles high. The system works by maintaining an open space on the first level. This
allows each car to be independently accessible from a kiosk.
3 California Government Code Section 65915(p)(2) provides for a reduction in the required vehicular parking
ratios of projects within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop. The Project qualifies for a parking ratio of 0.5 parking
space per bedroom. The Project is proposing 28 bedroom units. The required number of parking spaces was
determined as follows: 14 parking spaces =(28 bedroom units) X(0.5 parking space/bedroom unit).
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1 4 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
�
�
' aa.0 � az.i �
7 �
{ . . . .. . . . . . , 1-i0'fl ��
5�-0' � 19-9' _..� . .... . . ... __. .. . ... _.. ..it5'.T.. . . . . . .... ...� .. tU-0'
SFiPRCK ' . _ .... -� - � - - -� -� � SFiNALN
„YARDiflAS BIN
PNONDFD BY H(i U�SC �
'I�F�i`�LlE�ll�la 1F51GNPLFf1�EWFRY MFiA nWNIN�NP�VF
ffj��FRTY I ��:F yPAff
}-4--��� �� I . _. —_ I
I Y '_
q a W
I m � � . , � � ,��'4 ��� .. . . . � ,
.�. ' ' �— . � f � ' .
LJ I � i LLP
�" — ..,. - — � . , . . a �� _ . . .. _ �� _ � � � ��'13�tfi
-----r.` :�� �.- .._. �
(: i � �
� SYAIRAi1,� � � tW `= TRASH I '` ! �;.�. . ' ��.�- . � .. . � STAIR.#�� '' � I :
. � � ti
�� �� � ' . � EIEV � I ... _�. �� � . � . . . m =__.�— — — — �_.. pirttizi.vsrstcM . � � I �...
- __.
� ~
l I � I � LOBBV � HC 't I " — - - �
��
�
�__ _� . a,tt ...:__. g'a' 7�-._ �''g _ .. -.., 6 . _. .___,�e'R m ._�,., l .. � _l l/12 —� �� _ �-�" � i
- ' � �
�_ � ;
,
I � � � � *,
�� _
I � ' � � �. — i � I ,
i � -- 1 �
� Ma� � —, — _
{ sno '� � �I
ru ' �
�� . ' LOBBV � ��-_/ �_] . � 1i . `- � � � �I .. i4 g�I
a J ( x �_ _ .. , �' - ;'.�-._ -- — — — � -- � - � i�--�._l4/5 � � � z
y " � I i �i ELEVATOR �. -s �, . I -" iaQ7.r � ' .- � . _, � �_� I � � �,
- '. � MACHRM. fC�91CA1,� ...' ��+ � .. �
� � W , I ._— � �.
t��
_ - -,
� ... . .... � � �
_, i � 8 ...�---- � .� � . ' � i � �
� � � _-
:r- < � : _......
a -_A �
r -= „_ �
, � � � I _ � - +�*, : � I --., _ .._2/7 i .
� I ' �aaac r I r
� a�scarts¢ s��.[n _ E � -
/�� ' ( �I � � TMxa�aur � - — — �--�1 � �
1 -� A". i A,I . . � . �_._ ELE9TN6Al. � &WMf _.., +q� . . � ,�
�
�_'�j_ Y m I _ , i �\ I
_ �. _ - — H saarsxs�u `� � ,.� ,..» �. *"� , � � ,-_ � --._ i
u
� � ��
».o � � - M�,�a�m�aA� — '� �"� i -- rw'
r� 1. �, -
_
'� 1 } , ___ ----� �+
.�
� �' � - a� � �
��, -- --- � . _
o � �
�_ OPER7Y LBiE _ � �� �
i�.a� aiur �r-+ir �.. iatv �x�iiz �
�.a . _ .. �rr�ninn�+onErar+c _ . .. �as�v vk�iMnna+orrFri�; . .. - - . . - .. ..... �atr
_—. _ __ — _ _ - . ..___. - . __ .— . <. �saa .. . _ ..- _ . _. . _.. _.— __ _-__ _ . _-_ - - I
� , -i
� /�
2 � � �
� a8.n � n2o '
�
N�
o �o zo
Feet
Source: Pacific West Communities, Inc 2020.
`� , Figure 2
— � Site Plan — Ground �evel
�ICF
J� s p�
1 SFiFf�fM�j
i .,If
I
+pa �--
�---
�� I �
�Y.Y. _ . y1 . . _�_ 18�T
I
I I ��I I II
� �I
A2.1 �
��
I g ¢ j � DECK�
�I ! '
�'''� ` � � �
,� �
�!FiF AVR11"�'f.N�l�l'�
�
�
��i, � �
� iv-r
Source: Pacific West Communities, Inc 2020.
��� A'`� �AJ.I /
� �
..... .. . . i.. 11I-fr
� .. _. _ .. . �_�
J9-6 i��• ..� .
`>fioPEaT`{ uNE
_ _ Pf10PERTV LME _ _
P
ur-�v
.. '. I:f3.V ..
� �
2 ` � �
A,3.0 rt2.� �
�
._ . .. . ... . . � 14-4
�T-B i i• .. . ... . �
� 1P-p
� GEifliCN
I
--� ,
_ ` � �� � i
SiAIR A`2 � '.
fi
_ �� ' M1i(�.iRl �'�M$dC PEI.nYI��.�.
�
�
� I §I
n2a ' � �
� ��
I¢ �
� B� �'�� �
� AJ.I1 � I .,..
T- ; �
_ _ _ _ J
N�
o �o zo
Feet
�� - Figure 3
— � Site Plan — Podium Level
�ICF
� A�PftOVF�7 ('l)E31.JC PAf2KiNG
GARAGE ON LOT "N"
`:,=i
� �
r i ,,,.
:�. �
i*` ���,. „� � ��k.,�
�
t..�� � rr {'
�
. .. � .� -�_ .
4 y � � � ,ip � �'��I
!.y 8' � �,�
r4��I� I
'� � �7����.
� _ so.a
o io zo
Feet
Source: Pacific West Communities, Inc 2020.
„, 9rt 5F
0
__. .. . . . . � ^,� 9e.sn�
-t _ nooa
�
w _ eoa
�,� '
` � ._ �oa'
�j R� �..
; :���_ �
�
, .�,', , . noa�
. . . �� �� . .i�s£ ..,
�� ,, Figure 4
— � Southwest Elevation
�ICF
LORTON AVENUE ELEVATION — SOUTHWEST
. . �.,,�w� � w�.
{ i
� �-�_ -
-��- r ���
,
�� �
- �
h4� � {
�—
. _ _ �--�---
,.
_ _.� [.
� ,, �
� _ . �� (t _— �..__
r -
.. ,_ �,,",�„�,..
� �
. . � ��� �iii
�
+ �
�� �
�.__°
�t�-
��, �
�
�--� —
�
��} �
r--��—�-..
5 �
� i �
r �
_ �
! I �__
�: 1
.. . 4 9l.sn'
��93 55'
W
.. . � " 90.Q5
� �ob
_ _ + ,00�
q r
__...-------..---_.'i .5ooa
�~�� • ^�h_ � , it��
i
. � � . �
�'`�� r.��a „
�r:
LORTON AVENUE ELEVATION — NORTHWEST
o io zo
Feet
Source: Pacific West Communities, Inc 2020.
�� ,-- Figure 5
— �� Northwest Elevation
�ICF
-�;,,.- . � r s*�.� �"4S -_"=�--a*�..
��4+�•. � j �� l�l . �� _. � � �-�..
�T � _ + .
� , -` " ` k ' .,
�
v
_ s,
�,�, v-' a> r . ' � i�;�
;
� �<<
,'�. . t .
_� ^° � �
'.�.. i
��` �` ., � �
��
� v. � :;' ��i
�
� . �.
J
�
/
fJ
�.;
�__ '.
�
L
� , ! u
` � � � �,
� ��
- ��.
�
� .
�
� �s-..
�,� � ` , '
'��' y� ,�
;��
r �� �
t��� �
��„.;
� '.
�. �
Source: Pacific West Communities, Inc 2020.
,m
r'
i �t
�
� �
� �
i �, �
rh ; .
� .�.; �. � �--�-- NENf APPROVEO PUBIIG PAFK!P1L',
�„�Q,: ,� , GARAG[ ON LOT "N^
� �_,_.
AE�IAL VIEW FROM NORTHEAST
�;
�� ,. Figure 6
�'CF Rendering
LORTON AVE STREET I.EVEL VIE�II
City of Burlingame Project Description
The existing site currently includes approximately 1,993 sf of pervious areas. With implementation of
the Project, the site would include approximately 423 sf of pervious areas. Overall, the Project would
reduce the area of pervious surfaces by approximately 1,570 sf.
Remediation
Four properties within 0.5 mile of the Project site are identified as hazardous waste cleanup sites, two of
which remain active.4 The two active sites are approximately 500 feet from the Project site, at
1319 Howard Avenue and 1140 Howard Avenue; both are current or former dry cleaning facilities.
Halogenated solvents were identified in groundwater at the facilities. The sites are currently undergoing
remediation. Monitoring reports do not suggest that contaminated groundwater has encroached upon
the Project site. However, contaminated soil vapor encroachment is possible.s
The Project site is not identified on the Cortese List, and no hazardous materials or associated storage
containers, drains, sumps, or unidentified but potentially hazardous materials are present on the
property.b However, because of the age of the buildings on-site, which were built in 1912, asbestos and
lead-based paint may be present on interior surfaces; asbestos may also be present in the shingled
siding of the larger structure. If present, demolition would require abatement strategies to safely
manage asbestos and lead.
Screening tests for soil vapor encroachment did not identify chemicals of concern from prior property
uses. However, six properties within one-third mile of the Project site are known to have had chemical
releases, including hydrocarbon releases. Such releases can result in contaminated soil vapors. Per
requests from the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco region, the applicant
would incorporate construction design strategies that would ensure that soil vapors would not travel
down pathways created during Project construction (e.g., along utility corridors, in elevator shafts, etc.).
If required to comply with air quality standards, the Project would install a sub-slab vapor barrier and
possibly a positive ventilation system to protect indoor air quality. It is assumed that the vapor barrier
would meet performance criteria and prevent any exposure at the proposed residences. Groundwater
encountered during construction would be disposed of in accordance with a management plan, which
would be reviewed by the City and local authorities, as appropriate. The handling and disposal of any
contaminated soil or groundwater would comply with the regulations of the appropriate oversight
agencies and the statutes governing such work.
Construction Schedule and Phasing
The proposed construction methods are considered conceptual and subject to review and approval by
the City. For the purposes of this environmental document, the analysis considers the construction plan
described below.
4 RNC Environmental, LLC. 2019. Phase l Environmenta( Site Assessment: 128 Lorton, APN 029-231-210, 1Z8 Lorton
Avenue, 8urlingame, San Mateo Counry, Calrfornia. May 12. (RNC Project Number 1605A.) Prepared for Pacific
West Communities, Inc., Eagle, ID.
5 Ibid.
6 [bid.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-10 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame Projed Description
Project construction is expected to commence in August 2020 and continue through Project completion
in January 2022. Project construction would occur during the following hours, which are allowed by the
City, per Municipal Code Section 18.07.110:
• Weekdays: 8:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m.
• Saturdays: 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m.
• Sunday and holidays: No construction allowed.
The Project would be constructed in multiple phases that could overlap. In total, it is anticipated that
Project construction would have a duration of approximately 15 months, as follows:
. Hazardous Survey: 5 work days
• Abatement (as needed): 60 work days
• Mobilization: 5 work days
• Demolition: 10 work days
• Rough Grading: 5 work days
• Foundations and Backfill: 30 work days
• Parking Podium: 30 work days
• Framing and Exterior Finishes: 100 work days
• Interior Finishes: 120 work days
• Punch List: 20 work days
• Final Inspection: 5 work days
The construction schedule for this Project is expected to overlap with the construction schedule of the
Village at Burlingame Project. As part of the Village at Burlingame Project, the surface parking lot
adjacent to the Project site (Lot N) would be redeveloped as a five-story, 388-vehicle parking
structure. The surface parking lot across the street (Lorton Avenue) from the Project site (Lot F)
would be redeveloped as a five-story residential building. The approved parking garage at Lot N
would be constructed between October 2019 and January 2021, and the approved residential building
at Lot N would be constructed between May 2020 and May 2022.
Construction Equipment and Staging
Equipment used during Project construction would include excavators, dump trucks, bac�:hoes, graders,
forklifts, concrete saws, concrete pump trucks, cranes, and air compressors. Potential construction
laydown and staging areas would be located on the Project site. The applicant has committed to
ensuring that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction is equipped with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4"final" engines.
Excavation would reach a depth of 18 inches for foundations. Trenches for utilities could reach a depth
of 4 feet at some locations. There would be no pile driving associated with the Project; however, some
limited pier drilling may be required. In order to reduce potential noise impacts during construction, the
applicant has committed to developing and adhering to a Construction Noise Control Plan. This plan
would include measures such as:
• Using smaller equipment with lower horsepower or reducing the hourly utili;�ation rate of
equipment used on the site to reduce noise levels at 50 feet to the allowable level.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-11 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
Project Description
• Locating construction equipment as far as feasible from noise-sensitive uses.
• Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have sound
control devices that are at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer
and that all equipment be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation.
• Prohibiting gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust systems.
• Not idling inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods (i.e., more than 5 minutes).
• Constructing a solid plywood barrier around the construction site and adjacent to operational
businesses, residences, or other noise-sensitive land uses.
• Using temporary noise control blanket barriers.
. Monitoring the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.
• Using "quiet" gasoline-powered compressors or electrically powered compressors and electric
rather than gasoline- or diesel-powered forklifts for small lifting.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1 12 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
Section 2
CEQA Exemption
Article 19 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 1!i300 to 15333,
identifies classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment anc�, therefore, are
exempt from review under CEQA.
Class 32 (Infill Development)
Among the classes of projects that are exempt from CEQA review are those that are specifically
identified as urban infill development. CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 states that the term infill
deve(opment (or the Class 32 exemption) is applicable to projects that meet the following conditions:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general
plan policies as well as applicable zoning designations and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within the city limits, on a project site that is no more than
5 acres and surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to t:raffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The analysis presented in the following section provides substantial evidence that the Project qualifies
for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 as a Class 32 urban infill development. The
Project would not have a significant effect on the environment.
Exemptions
Even if a project is ordinarily exempt under the potential categorical exemptions, CEQA Guidelines
Section 15300.2 provides specific instances where exceptions to otherwise applicable e:Kemptions apply.
Exceptions to a categorical exemption apply in the following circumstances, effectively nullifying a CEQA
categorical exemption:
(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be
located. A project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may, in a
particularly sensitive environment, be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to
apply in all instances, except when the project may affect an environmental resource of
hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted
pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.
(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative
impact of successive projects of the same type and in the same place over time is significant.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption z 1 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
CEQA Exemption
(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity when there is a
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances.
(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project that may result in
damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock
outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway that has been officially designated as a
state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements that are required as mitigation by an
adopted negative declaration or certified environmental impact report (EIR).
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site
that is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
(� Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project that may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
The following analysis presents substantial evidence that there are no exceptions that apply to the
Project or its site, that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and that the
Class 32 exemption remains applicable.
City of Burlingame — Standard Conditions of Approval
As stated above, the Project site is within the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project
is subject to the Standard Conditions of Approval (SCAs), which apply to all projects within the
Downtown Specific Plan area. These conditions incorporate development policies and standards from
several adopted plans and policies (e.g., the Municipal Code, 2040 General Plan, requirements of
jurisdictional agencies) and substantially mitigate potential environmental impacts. The conditions are
included in the discussion and analysis of subsequent environmental review for all development
projects within the Downtown Specific Plan area.
In reviewing project applications, the City determines which SCAs apply, depending on the specific
characteristics of the project type and/or project site. Because the SCAs are mandatory City
requirements, this analysis assumes that the SCAs would be imposed and implemented by the Project
and not imposed as mitigation measures under CEQA. If it is determined that a project would have a
significant environmental impact, even with implementation of the conditions, other feasible mitigation
measures shall be developed.
An initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan,
which analyzed potential impacts of new infill development and included SCAs to mitigate potential
environmental impacts. The SCAs for the Downtown Specific Plan have been found to mitigate
environmental effects of projects proposed in the area substantially. As applicable, SCAs are adopted as
requirements of individual projects when approved by the City and designed to avoid or substantially
reduce a project's environmental effects.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 2 2 luly 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
Section 3
CEQA Exemption Checklist
Introduction
The following analysis provides substantial evidence to support a conclusion that the Project qualifies for
an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 as a Class 32 urban infill development and would not
have a significant effect on the environment.
Criterion Section 15332(a): General Plan and Zoning Consistency
Yes No
The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all � ❑
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
The 2010 Downtown Specific Plan continues to serve as a policy document and implementation guide
for development and planning decisions in the downtown area. Per the Downtown Specific Plan,
downtown Burlingame is divided into a series of planning areas, which provide for different mixes and
intensities. To allow for more precise distinctions, each area is further divided into blocks. The Project site
is located entirely on Block 24B of the Downtown Specific Plan, which is within the R-4 Incentive District.
The land uses in the R-4 Incentive District are predominantly high-density multi-family residential uses
but also civic, quasi-civic, and cultural uses. The R-4 Incentive District is regulated by R-4 zoning
standards, consistent with R-4 properties citywide. Multi-family residential uses are considered
permitted uses for the R-4 zone.
The Project qualifies for a housing density bonus, consistent with California's Density Bonus Law and
the City's Density Bonus Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 25.63.020) because approximately
10.5 percent of the units proposed would be affordable and reserved for moderate-income households.�
Section 25.63.050 of the Municipal Code provides the following:
An applicant may apply for a waiver or modification of development standards that will have the
effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities or with the
concessions or incentives permitted by this chapter. The developer must demonstrate that
development standards that are requested to be waived or modified will have the effect of physically
precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subsection (a) of Section
25.63.020 at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this chapter.
The R-4 zoning designation includes development standards for building setbacks, lot coverage
(50 percent), building height (55 feet), and landscaping (e.g., no more than 40 percent of the front
setback of the building shall be paving or other impervious surface). The Project would comply with the
landscaping requirements; however, the proposed setbacks, proposed height of the building (56 feet, six
inches tall), and proposed lot coverage (79.6 percent) are beyond what is allowed in the development
standards under the R-4 zoning designation. In addition, the Project would not comply with the common
open space and private open space requirements under the condominium subdivision standards. Lastly,
the Project would not comply with the off-street parking requirements (17 spaces provided where 24
' 10.5 percent =(two affordable units/19 total units) x 100 percent
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 1 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
spaces are required). However, if a project uses a density bonus, the zoning code allows for a waiver or
modification. The applicant would obtain a waiver/modification to the development standards,
consistent with Section 25.63.050 of the Municipal Code.
Given these facts, the Project meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(a) and is consistent
with general plan and applicable zoning regulations for the site.
Criterion Section 15332(b): Project Location, Size, and Context
Yes No
The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more � ❑
than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
The Project is within the incorporated limits of the city of Burlingame, on a single 0.172-acre lot at
128 Lorton Avenue. The Project site is bound by public parking to the north and west (Lot N) (a five-
level public parking garage is currently under construction); a residential multi-story building to the
east, and Lorton Avenue, a multi-story residential building, and another surface parking lot (Lot F) to
the south.
The surrounding area is urban/developed; it supports urban land uses and has paved public streets
(see Figure 1). CEQA defines a qualified urban use as "...any residential, commercial, public
institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those
uses."g Given these facts, the Project adheres to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(b) as a
site with no more than 5 acres that is substantially surrounded by urban uses.
Criterion Section 15332(c): Endangered, Rare, or Threatened Species
Yes No
The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. � ❑
As shown in Figure 1, the Project site is currently covered with urban uses, in the form of pavement and
two residential structures. There is some landscape vegetation in the front yard of the lot (i.e., a small
lawn and shrubs), Although there are no trees on the property, there is one street tree between the
sidewalk and Lorton Avenue; that tree would be removed and replaced with two new 24-inch box street
trees. Overall, the Project would compensate for removal of the tree by planting two street trees and
four trees on the subject property (in 24-inch boxes). The Project would also include a combination of
shrubs, perennials, vines, and ground cover throughout the site. There are no aquatic or wetland
features on or adjacent to the Project site.
The Project site is in the downtown area of Burlingame, which is fully developed and not known to
support any natural or sensitive biological communities. As part of a California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB) review for the Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, it was discovered that two special-
status species have been historically documented in the plan area: San Francisco garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) and Franciscan onion (Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum).9 Both of
e Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2016. California Environmental QualityActStatutes and Guidelines.
Section 21072, p. 8.
9 City of Burlingame. 2010. Draft Burlingame Downtown Specifrc Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
May 27, 2010. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/General%20and%20
Specific%20Plans/Draft%20[nitial%ZOStudy%20Mitigated%20Negative%20Declaration.pdf. Accessed: June
2020.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 Z July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
these species require grassland habitat communities, which are not present within or adjacent to the
Project area. Given these facts, the Project adheres to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(c).
However, because the Project would remove some small shrub vegetation that is currently present on-
site and one tree, the fotlowing SCAs from the Downtown Specific Plan would be applicable to the
Project during the construction period, resulting in less-than-significant impacts on existing habitat.
Pre-construction Nesting Bird Survey (SCA-14). Construction under the Downtown Specific Plan
shall avoid the March 15 through August 31 avian nesting period to the extent feasible. If it is not
feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified
wildlife biologist no earlier than 7 days prior to construction. The area surveyed shall include all
clearing/construction areas as well as areas within 250 feet of the boundaries of these areas or as
otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered,
clearing/construction shall be postponed within 250 feet of the nest until the young have fledged
(left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts.
Criterion Section 15332(d): Traffic
Yes No
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic. � ❑
Setting
A transportation impact analysis (TIA) prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants in June 2020 is
included in this document as Appendix A. The TIA describes existing and future conditions for
transportation with and without the Project. In addition, the TIA includes information on regional and
local roadway networks, pedestrian and transit conditions, and transportation facilities associated with
the Project. For a more detailed analysis, including all tables and figures, please refer to Appendix A.
Senate Bill 743, as codified in Public Resources Code Section 21099, resulted in changes to the CEQA
Guidelines. Public Resources Code Section 21099 states that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the
appropriate metric for measuring transportation impacts. Public Resources Code Section 21099 also
notes that level of service (LOS), or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not
be considered a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, this analysis focuses on potential
impacts on VMT. LOS information is included here for informational purposes only.
Trip Generation
For analysis of the Project, the TIA assumed the trip generation rates for the proposed new housing
units at 128 Lorton Avenue.10 The Project would generate 103 gross daily vehicle trips, with seven gross
trips occurring during the AM peak hour and eight gross trips occurring during the PM peak hour.
However, a transit trip reduction of 10 percent was applied to the peak-hour trip generation estimates.il
After applying the transit trip reduction, the Project would generate 67 net new daily vehicle trips, with
four net new trips (two inbound and two outbound) during the AM peak hour and five net new trips
(two inbound and three outbound) during the PM peak hour.
io Standard trip generation rates typically come from an Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication
titled Trip Generation Manual (tenth edition [2017]). Project trip generation was estimated by applying the
appropriate trip generation rates obtained from the Trip Generation Manual to the size and uses of the
development. The average trip generation rate for "Multi-Family Housing Mid-Rise" (Land Use 221) was applied
to the Project.
11 The reduction is based on the Project's proximity to Burlingame Trolley service and the Burlingame Caltrain station.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 3 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
Vehicle Miles Traveled
The Project is 0.2 mile from E1 Camino Real, which is considered a high-quality transit corridor. In
addition, the Project is approximately 0.3 mile from the Burlingame Caltrain station, which is considered
a major transit stop. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), states that "generally,
projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-
quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact."
Because the Project would be within 0.5 mile of a high-quality transit corridor and an existing major
transit stop, the Project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The
Project would result in a less-than-significant impact on VMT.
Roadway Segments
As the congestion management agency for San Mateo County, the City/County Association of
Governments (C/CAG) is responsible for maintaining the performance and standards of the Congestion
Management Program (CMP). Per CMP technical guidelines, all new developments estimated to add at
least 100 net peak-hour trips to the CMP roadway network are required to implement travel demand
management (TDM) measures in accordance with the C/CAG CMP checklist. Given that the Project is
expected to add fewer than 100 net peak-hour vehicle trips to the CMP roadway network,
implementation of TDM measures is not required. Accordingly, the Project would result in less-than-
significant impacts on roadway segments.
Access and Circulation
Vehicular access to the proposed condominium building would be provided from one full-access
driveway on Lorton Avenue. The driveway would be 12 feet, 4 inches wide, providing access to 17 stalls
in the parking garage. The City requires one 12-foot-wide driveway for parking areas with fewer than
30 vehicle spaces. Therefore, the new parking structure would comply with zoning code requirements
for two-way driveways. However, the driveway would not be wide enough for two vehicles to pass each
other. Although an entering vehicle would have to wait on Lorton Avenue while another vehicle is
exiting, this would not be a problem because of the low traffic volumes and speeds on Lorton Avenue.
There are no trees or visual obstructions along Lorton Avenue that could obscure sight distance at the
driveway. Garage access points are required to be free and clear of obstructions and provide adequate
sight distance, thereby ensuring that drivers see pedestrians on sidewalks, as well as vehicles and
bicycles, when exiting. The sight distance from the parking garage driveway is approximately 100 feet in
each direction. This distance is adequate for a downtown setting. ln addition, it is expected that vehicles
would be traveling slowly on Lorton Avenue. However, the edge of the proposed building would be
5 feet from the sidewalk, which would not allow drivers to see pedestrians on the sidewalk when exiting
the garage and vice versa. Appropriate warning signs and audible warning signals should be considered
at the garage entrance to alert pedestrians and bicyclists when vehicles are exiting the garage. With
warning signs and audible warning signals, impacts related to access and circulation at the Project site
would be less than significant.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Bicycle facilities are available in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, with connections to the
Burlingame Caltrain station. Bicyclists traveling to and from the site to the Burlingame Caltrain station
could use Burlingame Avenue and Lorton Avenue. Although neither street is a designated bike route,
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption July 2020
3-4
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
because of the low traffic volumes and speeds, both streets are conducive to bicycle travel. The Project
would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new
bicycle facilities, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at
signalized intersections. The Project is expected to increase the number of pedestrians who use the
sidewalks and crosswalks. Project plans show that the existing sidewalks along Lorton Avenue are
approximately 5 feet wide.
The overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the vicinity of the Project site has adequate
connectivity, providing pedestrians with safe routes to transit services and points of interest. The
Project would not remove any pedestrian facilities or conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new
pedestrian facilities, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
Transit
The Project study area is well served by San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), Caltrain, and the
Burlingame Trolley. Specifically, the study area is served by two SamTrans express bus routes and two
shuttle routes. The Project would generate approximately seven person-trips during the AM peak hour and
eight person-trips during the PM peak hour. Given the Project site's proximity to transit services, it is
expected that a portion of residents' trips (up to 10 percent) would be made by transit. Assuming that up
to 10 percent of the total number of trips would be made by transit, the Project would result in
approximately one new transit rider (maximum) during peak hours. It is also assumed that existing transit
has adequate capacity for accommodating this minor increase in ridership. The Project would not remove
any transit facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies associated with new transit
facilities, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
Intersection levels of Service
California Public Resource Code Section 21099 states that LOS, and similar metrics, generally no longer
constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. Therefore, the following LOS analysis is
included below for informational purposes only. The Project's potential impact on VMT is identified above.
Traffic Scenarios
The following traffic forecasting scenarios were considered in the analysis:
• Existing Conditions (Scenario 1): Existing traffic volumes at study intersections were obtained
from traffic counts in March 2018 and January 2019.
• Background Conditions (Scenario 2): Background traffic volumes reflect traffic added by
approved but not-yet-completed developments in the Project area. Background conditions are
defined as conditions within the next 3 to 5 years (a horizon year of 2021-2023), just prior to
completion/occupation of the Project.
• Existing-Plus-Project Conditions (Scenario 3): Traffic volumes with the Project were
estimated by adding the additional traffic generated by the Project to existing traffic volumes.
• Project Conditions (Scenario 4): Background traffic volumes with the Project were estimated
by adding the additional traf�c generated by the Project to background traffic volumes.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 5 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
CEQA Exemption Checklist
• Cumulative Conditions (Scenario 5): Cumulative traffic volumes represenit traffic growth
through 2029. Cumulative traffic volumes were estimated by applying an annual growth factor
of 1.0 percent as well as Project-generated traffic.
For all scenarios, the TIA included an analysis of AM and PM peak-hour traffi�. conditions for
two unsignalized, stop-controlled intersections in the viciniry of the Project site, as follo�,vs:
1. Lorton Avenue and Howard Avenue
2. Lorton Avenue and Bayswater Avenue
The City does not have a formally adopted LOS standard for unsignalized intersections.
LOS Analysis
Existing Conditions (Scenario 1). Both stop-controlled study intersections currently operate at LOS B
or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Lorton Avenue/Howard Avenue is all-way stop controlled,
and Lorton Avenue/Bayswater Avenue is two-way stop controlled.
Background Conditions (Scenario 2). Both study intersections would continue t�� operate at an
acceptable LOS (LOS B or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours under background conditions.
This indicates that vehicles at stop-controlled approaches would continue to experience only minor
delays.
Existing-Plus-Project Conditions (Scenario 3). Both study intersections would contir�ue to operate at
LOS B or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. This indicates that vehicles a^�t stop-controlled
approaches would continue to experience only minor delays with the addition of Project traffic under
existing conditions.
Project Conditions (Scenario 4). With the Project, both study intersections would conti�nue to operate at
LOS B or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, vehicles at the stop-controlled
approaches would continue to experience only minor delays, similar to existing conditions.
Cumulative Conditions (Scenario 5). Both study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS of C
or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, even with the addition of Project traffic and
general future traffic growth in the area under cumulative conditions, vehicles at stop-controlled
approaches would be expected to experience only moderate delays.
Overall LOS with Project. As explained above, the Project, under all conditions, would not degrade the
existing LOS at unsignalized intersections to unacceptable levels.
Criterion Section 15332(d): Noise
Yes No
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to noise. � ❑
Overview of Noise and Sound
Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound that annoys or disturbs people and potentially causes an
adverse psychological or physiological effect on human health. Because noise is an environmental
pollutant that can interfere with human activities, an evaluation of noise is necessary when considering
the environmental impacts of a project.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 6 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
Sound is characterized by various parameters, including the rate of oscillation of sound waves
(frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In
particular, the sound pressure level is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of
an ambient (existing) sound level. Although the decibel scale, a logarithmic scale, is used to quantify
sound intensiry, it does not accurately describe how sound intensity is perceived by human hearing. The
human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies in the entire spectrum; therefore, noise
measurements are weighted more heavily toward frequencies to which humans are sensitive through a
process referred to as A-weighting.
Human sound perception, in general, is such that a change in sound level of 1 decibel (dB) cannot
typically be perceived by the human ear, a change in sound level of 3 dB is just noticeable, a change of
5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving the sound level. A
doubling of actual sound energy is required to result in a 3 dB (i.e., barely noticeable) increase in noise;
in practice, for example, this means that the volume of traffic on a roadway would typically need to
double to result in a noticeable increase in noise.12
The decibel level of a sound decreases (or attenuates) exponentially as the distance from the source of
that sound increases. For a point source, such as a stationary compressor or construction equipment,
sound attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. For a line source, such as free-flowing traffic
on a freeway, sound attenuates at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance. Atmospheric conditions,
including wind, temperature gradients, and humidity, can change how sound propagates over distance
and affect the level of sound received at a given location. The degree to which the ground surface
absorbs acoustical energy also affects sound propagation. Sound that travels over an acoustically
absorptive surface, such as grass, attenuates at a greater rate than sound that travels over a hard
surface, such as pavement. The increased attenuation is typically in the range of 1 to 2 dB per doubling
of distance. Barriers, such as buildings and topography that block the line of sight between a source and
receiver, also increase the attenuation of sound over distance.
In urban environments, simultaneous noise from multiple sources may occur. Because sound pressure
levels, in decibels, are based on a logarithmic scale, they cannot be added or subtracted in the usual
arithmetical way. Adding a new noise source to an existing noise source, with both producing noise at
the same level, will not double the noise level. If the difference between two noise sources is
10 A-weighted decibels (dBA) or more, the higher noise source will dominate, and the resultant noise
level will be equal to the noise level of the higher noise source. In general, if the difference between two
noise sources is 0 to 1 dBA, the resultant noise level will be 3 dBA higher than the higher noise source, or
both sources if the sources are equal. If the difference between two noise sources is 2 to 3 dBA, the
resultant noise level will be 2 dBA above the higher noise source. If the difference between two noise
sources is 4 to 10 dBA, the resultant noise level will be 1 dBA higher than the higher noise source.
Community noise environments are generally perceived as quiet when the 24-hour average noise level
is below 45 dBA, moderate in the 45 to 60 dBA range, and loud above 60 dBA. Very noisy urban
residential areas are usually around 70 dBA, community noise equivalent leve) (CNEL). A)ong major
thoroughfares, roadside noise levels are typically between 65 and 75 dBA CNEL. Incremental increases
of 3 to 5 dB to the existing 1-hour equivalent sound level (Leq), or to the CNEL, are common thresholds
for an adverse community reaction to a noise increase. However, there is evidence that incremental
thresholds in this range may not be adequately protective in areas where noise-sensitive uses are
located and the CNEL is already high (i.e., above 60 dBA). In these areas, limiting noise increases to 3 dB
1z California Department of Transportation. 2013. Technical Noise Supptement to the Tra�c NoiseAnalysis
Protocol. September. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013A.pdf.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 � July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
or less is recommended.13 Noise intrusions that cause short-term interior levels to rise above 45 dBA at
night can disrupt sleep. Exposure to noise levels greater than 85 dBA for 8 hours or longer can cause
permanent hearing damage.
Overview of Ground-borne Vibration
Ground-borne vibration is an oscillatory motion of the soil with respect to the equilibrium position. It
can be quantified in terms of velocity or acceleration. Variations in geology and distance result in
different vibration levels, including different frequencies and displacements. In all cases, vibration
amplitudes decrease with increased distance.
Operation of heavy construction equipment creates seismic waves that radiate along the surface of and
downward into the ground. These surface waves can be felt as ground vibration. Vibration from the
operation of construction equipment can result in effects that range from annoyance for people to
damage for structures. Perceptible ground-borne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few
hundred feet of construction activities. As seismic waves travel outward from a vibration source, they
cause rock and soil particles to oscillate. The actual distance that these particles move is usually only a
few ten-thousandths to a few thousandths of an inch. The rate or velocity (in inches per second) at
which these particles move is the commonly accepted descriptor of vibration amplitude, referred to as
peak particle velocity, or PPV.
Vibration amplitude attenuates (or decreases) over distance. This attenuation is a complex function of
how energy is imparted into the ground as well as the soil or rock conditions through which the
vibration is traveling (variations in geology can result in different vibration levels). The following
equation is used to estimate the vibration level at a given distance for typical soil conditions. PPVref 1S tI7C'
reference PPV at 25 feet.
PPV = PPVref X (25/distance)l.s
Table 1 summarizes typical vibration levels generated by construction equipment at a reference
distance of 25 feet and other distances, as determined with use of the attenuation equation above.
Table 1. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Caisson drill
Large bulldozer
Loaded trucks
Jackhammer
Small bulldozer
PPV
(in/sec) at
25 Feet
0.089
0.089
0.076
0.035
0.003
PPV
(in/sec) at
50 Feet
0.0315
0.0315
0.0269
0.0124
0.0011
PPV PPV PPV
(in/sec) at (in/sec) at (in/sec) at
75 Feet 100 Feet 175 Feet
0.0171 0.0111 0.0048
0.0171 0.0111 0.0048
0.0146 0.0095 0.0041
0.0067 0.0044 0.0019
0.0006 0.0004 0.0002
Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA-VA-90-
1003-06. Office of Planning and Environment. Available:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-
vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-01Z3_O.pdf.
13 Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration lmpactAssessment. FTA-VA-90-1003-06.
Office of Planning and Environment. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/Files/docs/research-
innovation/118131 /transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_O.pdf.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3$ July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
Regulatory Setting
CEQA Exemption Checklist
There are no federal noise standards that are directly applicable to the Project. With regard to state
regulations, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 2(California Noise Insulation Standards),
establishes minimum noise insulation standards to protect persons within new hotels, motels,
dormitories, long-term care facilities, apartment houses, or dwellings other than single-family
residences. Under this regulation, interior noise levels that are attributable to exterior noise sources
cannot exceed 45 dBA, day-night level (Lan), in any habitable room.
With respect to local noise standards, two regulation sources are applicable to the Project: the 2040
General Plan and the Municipal Code. The applicable regulations from these two sources are described
below.
2040 General Plan
Chapter 8, Community Safety Element, of the 2040 General Plan establishes noise and land use
compatibility standards to guide new development. It provides goals and policies to reduce the harmful
and annoying effects of excessive noise in the city. The policies relevant to the Project include:
• Locating noise-sensitive uses away from major sources of noise (Policy CS-4.1)
• Requiring the design of new residential development and office development to comply with
protective noise standards (Policies CS-4.2 and CS-4.3, respectively)
• Monitoring noise impacts from aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
and Mills-Peninsula Medical Center (Policy CS-4.7)
• Requiring the evaluation and mitigation, if necessary, of airport noise impacts if a project is
located within the 60 CNEL contour line of SFO (Policy CS-4.8)
• Complying with real estate disclosure requirements pertaining to existing and planned airports
within 2 miles of the sale or ]ease of a properry (Policy CS-4.9)
• Requiring development projects subject to discretionary approval to assess potential
construction noise impacts on nearby sensitive uses and minimize impacts consistent with the
Municipal Code (Policy CS-4.10)
• Requiring a vibration impact assessment for projects that would use heavy-duty equipment and
be located within 200 feet of an existing structure or sensitive receptor (Policy CS-4.13)
Also in the Community Safety Element of the 2040 General Plan are noise compatibility criteria for each
category of land use in the city. Multi-family residential land uses, motels and hotels, schools, libraries,
churches, hospitals, and nursing homes are compatible with outdoor noise levels of up to 60 dBA, Lan or
CNEL, while single-family residential land uses are compatible with noise of up to 55 dBA, La� or CNEL.
Less noise-sensitive land uses, such as commercial and industrial uses, are considered compatible with
higher levels of outdoor noise (refer to Figure 7, below, from the Community Safery Element, which
shows the outdoor noise levels that are suitable for the various land use categories).
CEQA Class 32 infill Exemption 3 9 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
Land Use C�tec�oiy
Community Noise Exposijre Ldn/CNEL, d6
55 h<'�
����
�e - -
F�esic(ent�a{ - Law C)er�sity Si��qle Fan�iily, Dupiex, Mobile Hon�e�
��sidezitial - Multi. Family
Transient Lodginq - Mt�tels, Hotef�
�chc,ols� Libraries, Churches, Hcspitals, Nursinc� Nomes
Auciit�riurns; Concert Halis, Ail7phitheater4
S��oits Arer�ati, Outdooi S��ectator Sport�
F'i�yyic>t�r�ds, Neic�i�borhond Parks
Goif C�ur�e, Ridinc� 5tabies, Water Recretition. C�metzries
C7ffice BuileliEic�s, Business Conimerciai a��d r s�e�fe5sio��al
fnd��stri�l M��nuf��ctuti���c� i_ltiiities. �_3riculture
__-�
_— � i
I ,�
r � NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE
' Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption that most buildings involved are of normal convent�onal
construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
`�`� `-"`' CONDITIONALLYACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but
with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice.
NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does
proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features
included in the design.
- CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development shouid generalry not be underfaken. If new construction or development does
proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features
included in the design.
Source: City of Burlingame 2019.
� �;.: Figure 7
�ICF City of Burlingame Outdoor Noise Level Planning Criteria
City of Burlingame
City of Burlingame Municipal Code
CEQA Exemption Checklist
The Building Construction section of the Municipal Code establishes daily hours for construction in the
ciry. Chapter 18.07.110 states that no person shall erect, demolish, alter, or repair any building or structure
outside the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays or 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays;
no construction shall take place on Sundays and holidays, except under circumstances of urgent necessity
in the interest of public health and safety. An exception, which must be approved in writing by a building
official, shall be granted for a period of no more than 3 days for structures with a gross floor area of less
than 40,000 gsf when reasonable to accomplish erection, demolition, alteration, or repair work; the
exception shall not exceed 20 days for structures with a gross floor area of 40,000 gsf or greater. In
addition to the restriction on hours for construction, Section 10.40.039 of the Municipal Code identifies
time periods when loading and unloading activities are prohibited in a residential district (i.e., between
10:00 p.m. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday and 7:00 a.m. the following day; between
10:00 p.m. Friday and 8 a.m. the following Saturday; between 10:00 p.m. Saturday and 8:00 a.m. the
following Sunday; and between 10:00 p.m. the day before a holiday and 8:00 a.m. on the holiday).
The Municipal Code also contains standards that limit noise from mechanical equipment, such as air-
conditioners and generators, to 60 dBA during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA
during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m, (Section 25.58.050).
Existing Noise Levels
The primary existing source of noise in the Project area is traffic on nearby roadways, mainly Lorton
Avenue and, to a lesser extent, Howard Avenue, Highland Avenue, and Bayswater Avenue. Other typical
urban noise sources, such as voices, landscaping equipment, sirens, commercial vehicle
loading/unloading, and parking lots,14 are also present.
Existing noise levels in the Project area can be characterized by the noise measurements conducted for
the 2040 General Plan EIR. Short-term measurement site 1 from the 2040 General Plan EIR is nearest to
the Project site, at the intersection of Bayswater Avenue and California Drive, approximately 600 feet
away. Daytime noise levels at this location ranged from 66.9 to 67.2 dBA Le9,ls Measurement site 1 is
near a street (California Drive) that is busier than streets near the Project site; as such, ambient noise
levels at the Project site are somewhat lower than levels at the measurement location. Long-term
measurement site 1 from the 2040 General Plan EIR is in Washington Park. Although this location is
approximately 2,000 feet from the Project site, the 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that noise levels at
measurement site 1 are representative of noise levels associated with single-family residential land uses
in the eastern part of the city.lb Because the Project site is in the same region of the city, noise levels at
long-term measurement site 1 represent a reasonable approximation of noise levels at the Project site.
The noise levels at long-term site 1 are as follows:
• Daytime: 49.6-61.5 dBA Leq
• Evening: 57.2-59.9 dBA Leq
la These sources of noise include car engines starting, car doors slamming, car alarms activating, and vehicle
backup alarms sounding.
�s City of Burlingame. 2018. Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR. Chapter 15, Noise and Vibration. Available:
https://www.envisionburlingame.org/files/managed/Document/360/Chapter%2015_Noise_BurlingameGP-
EIR_06-26-2018.pdf. Accessed: July 2019.
16 Ibid.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-11 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
• Nighttime: 53.4-65.6 dBA Leq
• 24-hour noise: 59.3 dBA CNEL
Noise-Sensitive Land Uses
CEQA Exemption Checklist
The Project site is surrounded by predominately commercial and residential land uses. Immediately east
of the Project site is a multi-family apartment building, the Lorton Arms, at 124 Lorton Avenue. This
building houses the closest group of noise-sensitive receptors. Several other multi-family buildings are
located nearby; these include the buildings across the street from the Project site at 121 and 125 Lorton
Avenue and on the rest of the block. In the larger neighborhood surrounding the Project site, there are
numerous multi-family buildings as well as single-family homes. These residentia] uses are located
farther to the east along Lorton Avenue and on Bayswater Avenue, Park Road, and Highland Avenue.
Many residential uses have the potential to be affected by the Project, but the residential use that would
be the affected is the Lorton Arms building.
The Project site is approximately 200 feet east of the intersection of Howard Avenue and Lorton Avenue,
within a dense commercial area. The businesses on Howard Avenue and Lorton Avenue include banks,
salons, spas, retail stores, real estate offices, restaurants, and cafes. In general, commercial uses are not
considered noise-sensitive uses. However, one business on Howard Avenue that is considered noise-
sensitive is Teaching and Assessing Language for Kids (TALK), which is a speech pathologist's office at
1209 Howard Avenue. This land use could be adversely affected by substantial increases in noise above
ambient levels. Other types of land uses, such as educational and religious uses, are also adversely
affected by increased noise levels. The Limitless Church is 200 feet east of the Project site (at 110 Lorton
Avenue), and the Metaphysical Church is 700 feet south of the Project site (at 241 Park Road). The Saint
Catherine of Siena School, an elementary school, is approximately 450 feet south of the Project site (at
1300 Bayswater Avenue). In addition, north of the Project site are multiple auto body shops and car
dealerships on California Drive, which range in distance from 250 to more than 1,000 feet from the site.
These types of uses are not considered noise-sensitive uses.
Noise Effects
Rooftop Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) Equipment Noise and Other
Operational Noise Sources. The Project would include roof-mounted HVAC units to provide heating
and cooling for building occupants. Typical HVAC equipment can produce sound levels in the range of 70
to 75 dBA at 50 feet, depending on the size of the equipment.l' Based on manufacturers' information,
the heat pump used on the rooftop will generate a noise level of approximately 69 dBA.18 The individual
heating and cooling units for each housing unit, also mounted on the rooftop, will generate noise levels
between 51 and 56 dBA.19 The specific equipment that the Project would use for heating and cooling
would therefore generate lower noise levels than typical equipment.
Other sources of noise during Project operations may include landscaping activities, building
maintenance, garbage collection, and human voices. As discussed previously, the nearest noise-sensitive
land use is adjacent to the Project site, in an area where individual residences may be as close as 20 feet
from the site. However, HVAC equipment at the Project site would be located on top of the fifth floor,
which would increase attenuation with the vertical distance between the equipment and the nearest
17 Hoover and Keith. 2000. Noise Control for Buildings, Manufacturrng Plants, Equipment, and Products. Houston, TX.
1B Carrier. 2012. Product Data - 25 HBC5.
19 Mitsubishi Electric. 2015. M-Series Submittal Data.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 12 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
residences. The roof would also have a wall that would screen the mechanical equipment, which would
further attenuate noise from the equipment. In addition, Chapter 15 of the 2040 General Plan EIR
concludes that stationary-source noise impacts from HVAC equipment and other non-transportation
noise sources would be less than significant because the equipment and sources would be required to
comply with the provisions of the Municipal Code that pertain to such sources.20 Noise impacts from
rooftop HVAC equipment and other operational noise sources at the Project site would, therefore, be
less than significant.
Parking Structure Noise. According to the TIA (Appendix A), approximately six vehicles in the AM peak
hour and seven vehicles in the PM peak hour would enter and exit the Project garage via the driveway.
The small number of vehicles entering and exiting the driveway during peak hours would not cause a
noticeable change in noise in a dense urban setting. In addition, noise from vehicle engines and tires in
the Project's parking structure would be attenuated by the walls of the garage.
Inside the garage, a CityLift Puzzle vehicle stacking unit would be used to facilitate vehicle parking in a
space-limited area. The stacking unit mechanically moves cars horizontally and vertically, which
generates noise from use of an electric motor and the movement of inetal gates. At a distance of 5 feet,
horizontal and vertical car movement can result in noise levels of 63 and 59 Leq dBA, respectively.zl
Noise levels of 59 and 63 Leq dBA at a distance of 5 feet would not cause a substantial increase in noise
that would be noticeable at any sensitive land use. This is because the noise would attenuate to a level
that would be consistent with ambient levels within a short distance. As stated above, sound attenuates
at a rate of 6 dB with a doubling of distance; therefore, at a distance of 10 feet, the loudest noise from the
stacking unit would be 57 Leq dBA (63 - 6= 57). At 20 feet, noise would attenuate by 12 dB; the loudest
noise would be 51 Leq dBA. As mentioned above, the Project garage would also have walls that would
further attenuate noise. Because stacking unit noise would attenuate to ambient levels of noise or below
within a short distance, existing sensitive land uses would not notice a substantial increase in noise.
Therefore, noise impacts from the proposed parking structure would be less than significant.
Traffic Noise. Traffic would increase in the area as a result of Project implementation. Traffic noise
increases with increasing traffic volumes. However, a doubling in traffic volumes (a 100 percent increase)
equates to a 3 dB increase in noise. As discussed above, an increase of 3 dB is considered to be barely
noticeable by the human ear and not a substantial increase. Roadway segments with less than a 100
percent increase in traffic are therefore considered to be segments that would not experience significant
traffic noise impacts as a result of the Project (refer to Appendix B for the traffic noise data tables).
With respect to existing conditions, representing traffic volumes in 2018 and 2019, the Project would
result in minor increases in traffic volumes in the AM peak hour (i.e., up to a maximum of 2 percent on
Lorton Avenue between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue). For future conditions in the 2021 to
2023 timeframe, background growth in the Project area would result in traffic volume increases, even in
the absence of the Project. With respect to these future background conditions, the Project would result
in a maximum increase of 1.6 percent in the AM peak hour on the same segment of Lorton Avenue. The
increase in traffic volumes relative to existing conditions and background conditions would correspond
to an increase in noise levels that would not be noticeable to the human ear.
20 City of Burlingame. 2018. Envision Burlingame Draft Environmental /mpact Report. June 28. Available:
https://www.envisionburlingame.org/files/managed/Document/378/BurlingameGP_DEIR_FullDocument_06-
28-2018.pdf. Accessed: July 2019.
zl Veneklasen Associates. 2018. CiryLift Puzzle Sound Measurements of Parking Lift Operation. September 6.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-13 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
In the cumulative scenario, which corresponds to conditions in 2029, there would be even more
background growth in the Project area than in the 2021 to 2023 timeframe. For the cumulative-plus-
Project scenario, which accounts for increased traffic volumes from the Project in addition to growth
from all other development in the area, traffic volumes would increase in the AM peak hour by a
maximum of 44 percent on Lorton Avenue relative to existing conditions. It is important to reiterate that
the 44 percent increase on Lorton Avenue is the increase in traffic volumes from all development in the
area; therefore, the contribution of only the Project would be significantly less than 44 percent.
Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of traffic in the area in 2029 relative to existing conditions would not
cause a substantial increase in noise because a 44 percent increase is less than the 100 percent increase
required for there to be a noticeable change in noise. Because the increase would not be noticeable, the
impacts of traffic noise would be less than significant.
Construction Noise. The Project would demolish the on-site structures and associated surface parking
and construct a new building with a parking structure and other amenities. Demolition and construction
activities would generate noise, resulting in a temporary increase in noise levels at adjacent land uses. All
construction activities would comply with the time-of-day restrictions specified in the Municipal Code.
The significance of potential noise impacts resulting from demolition and construction would depend on
the noise generated by the various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-
generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors.
To assess the potential for significant construction noise impacts, the Federal Highway Administration's
source noise levels for construction equipment were used to approximate the level of noise that would
occur during construction. Table Z shows average noise levels at 50 feet, based on Federal Highway
Administration data for the equipment that is expected to be used for Project construction.
To provide a reasonable worst-case analysis of potential noise impacts from concurrent use of
construction equipment during Project construction, construction noise modeling was conducted that
assumed that the three loudest pieces of equipment proposed for use during each construction phase
would operate simultaneously in the same location on the Project site. Table 3 identifies the combined
noise level, in terms of Leq, from operation of the three loudest pieces of construction equipment for each
phase at increasing distances from the Project site.
As shown in Table 3, combined construction noise levels would be generally consistent with the noise
levels referenced in Chapter 15, Noise and Vibration, of the 2040 General Plan EIR (i.e., 85 to 88 dBA at
50 feet). The parking podium, framing/roofing and interior finishes phases would result in noise Ievels
that would be lower than 85 dBA Leq at 50 feet. No construction phase would have noise levels that
would exceed 86 dBA Leq at 50 feet.
Without incorporation of noise reduction measures, some construction equipment would have the
potential to increase noise levels above ambient levels, which could be considered a substantial
increase. Chapter 15 of the 2040 General Plan EIR notes that sustained Leq levels of 85 dBA would result
in noise that would be 18 to 39 dBA above ambient conditions in low- to medium-density residential
areas of the city and 11 to 28 dBA above ambient conditions in higher-density residential, commercial,
and industrial areas of the city. Consequently, the 2040 General Plan EIR revised Policy CS.4-10 in the
Community Safety Element to require all development projects that are subject to discretionary review
and located near noise-sensitive land uses to minimize adverse noise impacts through noise control
measures. Noise control measures include construction management techniques, construction
equipment controls, sound barriers, and construction noise monitoring.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-14 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue ProjeCt ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
CEQA Exemption Checklist
Table 2. Construction Equipment Reference Noise Levels for Proposed Project Constructiona
Lmax 1i Leq at Percent
50 Feet 50 Feet Usage
Construction Equipment (dBA) (dBA) Factor
Phase 1 - Demolition
Excavator 81 77 40%
Dump truck 76 72 40%
Backhoe 78 74 40%
Phase 2 - Rough Grading
Grader 85 81 40%
Dump truck 76 72 40%
Backhoe 78 74 40%
Phase 3 - Foundations
Forklift�� 84 80 40%
Excavator 81 77 40%
Concrete saw 90 83 20%
Concrete pump truck 81 74 20%
Phase 4 - Parking Podium
Forklifth 84 80 40%
Crane 81 73 16%
Concrete pump truck 81 74 20%
Phase 5 - Framing/Roofing
Forklifth 84 80 40%
Excavator 81 77 40%
Crane 81 73 16%
Air compressor 78 74 40%
Phase 6- Building Interior/Architectural Coating
Air compressor 78 74 40%
Source: Federal Highway Administration. Z006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide. Available:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf. Accessed: June 2019.
� The construction equipment list in this table has been provided by the applicant.
h Represented by "tractor" from user's guide.
L,,,aX = maximum sound level
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-15 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF o0370.19
City of Burlingame
Table 3. L�q Construction Noise Levels by Phase (dBA)
CEQA Exemption Checklist
Distance from Rough Parking Framing/ Interiors
Source (feet) Demo. Grading Foundations Podium Roofing Finishes
20 90 92 95 92 92 89
50 80 82 85 82 82 79
100 72 75 78 74 75 71
200 65 67 70 67 67 64
300 60 63 66 62 63 59
400 57 60 63 59 60 56
500 55 57 60 57 57 54
600 53 55 58 55 55 52
700 51 54 57 53 54 50
800 50 52 55 52 52 49
900 48 51 54 50 51 47
1,000 47 50 53 49 50 46
Notes:
• Geometric attenuation based on 6 dB per doubling of distance.
• This calculation does not include the effects, if any, of local shielding.
• LE��� noise is presented in dBA units, which approximate the frequency response of the human ear.
• The three loudest pieces of equipment for each phase are as follows:
o Demolition: excavator, dump truck, backhoe
o Rough Grading: grader, dump truck, backhoe
o Foundations: concrete saw, forklift, excavator
o Parking Podium: forklift, crane, concrete pump truck
o Framing/Roofing: forklift, excavator, air compressor
o Interior Finishes: three air compressors
As noted above, there are multiple noise-sensitive land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project site,
the closest of which is approximately 20 feet away. At that distance, Leg construction noise levels would
be between 89 and 95 dBA. Noise in that range would very likely be a substantial increase over ambient
noise levels for occupants at 124 Lorton Avenue and other nearby buildings. However, because existing
noise-sensitive land uses are in proximity to the Project site, noise control measures would be required,
per Policy CS.4-10 of the 2040 General Plan.
With implementation of a design feature (i.e., develop a Construction Noise Control Plan, as outlined in
the Project Description) as part of the Project design, all equipment would comply with applicable
thresholds. As described in the Project Description, the Construction Noise Control Plan would be
developed by the applicant and include measures such as:
• Using smaller equipment with lower horsepower or reducing the hourly utilization rate of
equipment used on the site to reduce noise levels at 50 feet to the allowable level.
• Locating construction equipment as far as feasible from noise-sensitive uses.
• Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have sound
control devices that are at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer
and that all equipment be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-16 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
• Prohibiting gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust systems.
• Not idling inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods (i.e., more than 5 minutes).
• Constructing a solid plywood barrier around the construction site and adjacent to operational
businesses, residences, or other noise-sensitive land uses.
• Using temporary noise control blanket barriers.
• Monitoring the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.
• Using "quiet" gasoline-powered compressors or electrically powered compressors and electric
rather than gasoline- or diesel-powered forklifts for small lifting.
With the Construction Noise Control Plan incorporated as part of the Project design, construction noise
would be reduced to levels that would not be considered substantial. Consistent with Chapter 15 of the
2040 General Plan EIR, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
Vibration Effects. As shown in Table 2, above, the Project would require several different types of
construction equipment. Although pile driving would not be required, construction would require the
use of other equipment that may generate vibration. The equipment that would be used on the Project
and generate the most vibration during construction would be a loaded truck and a small bulldozer (see
Table 1). The loaded truck would remain on Lorton Avenue and occasionally pass residences in the
Project vicinity. For a worst-case scenario, with a residence located 25 feet from the roadway, a loaded
truck would generate occasional vibration events with a PPV of approximately 0.076 inch per second
(see Table 1). A small bulldozer would very likely operate throughout the Project site and be as close as
20 feet from the nearest residences at 124 Lorton Avenue. Using the source levels in Table 1, as well as
the vibration attenuation equation shown in Overview of Ground-borne Vibration, vibration levels from a
small bulldozer at a distance of 20 feet would have a PPV of 0.004 inch per second. The effects of
vibration from a loaded truck and small bulldozer during construction with respect to the potential for
building damage and human annoyance are discussed below.
During Project operation, no impact equipment or other equipment associated with substantial ground-
borne vibration would be used. No vibration impacts would occur during Project operations.
Damage. As discussed in Criterion 15300.2(f�: Historical Resources, two buildings in the vicinity of the
Project site could be considered "older residential structures." The threshold for damage potential with
this category of structure is a PPV of 0.3 inch per second (for continuous/frequent intermittent sources
of vibration).zz
Table 4 summarizes the guidelines developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
for damage potential from transient and continuous vibration associated with construction activity.
Activities that can cause continuous vibration include the use of excavation equipment, static
compaction equipment, tracked vehicles, vehicles on a highway, vibratory pile drivers, pile extraction
equipment, and vibratory compaction equipment.
zz These building characterizations are used by the California Department of Transportation for the purposes of
identifying potential building damage impacts. As a worst-case scenario, it assumed that some of the
surrounding buildings fit best within the 'blder residential structure" category. However, these classifications
are considered to be conservative and should not be used to infer any details on the actual age or condition of
the surrounding buildings.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 1� July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
Table 4. Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Guidelines
Structure and Condition
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments
Fragile buildings
Historic and some old buildings
Older residential structures
New residential structures
Modern industrial/commercial buildi
CEQA Exemption Checklist
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Continuous/Frequent
Sourcesa Intermittent Sourcesb
0.12
0.2
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.08
0.1
0.25
0.3
0.5
0.5
Source: California Department of Transportation. 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual. September. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_
FINAL.pdf. Accessed: June 2019.
Notes:
a Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event (e.g., blasting or use of drop balls).
n Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-
and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.
The equipment with the greatest potential to cause ground-borne vibration are a loaded truck and a
small bulldozer. At a reference distance of 25 feet the loaded truck would result in a vibration level
(PPV) of 0.076. At a reference distance of 20 feet the small bulldozer would result in a vibration level
(PPV) of 0.004. This is well below the level for damage potential at older residential structures (PPV of
0.5 and 0.3 inch per second for transient and continuous sources, respectively), as shown in Table 4,
above. Because this assessment is a reasonable worst-case scenario for the area between the location of
construction equipment and the nearest adjacent buildings, no damage would occur at any building in
the viciniry of the Project site. This impact would be less than significant.
Annoyance
Table 5 summarizes the guidelines developed by Caltrans for annoyance potential from transient and
continuous vibration associated with construction activity. As shown in Table 5, the limit of perceptibility
for ground-borne vibration is a PPV of 0.04 and 0.01 inch per second for transient and continuous sources,
respectively. Note that people are generally more sensitive to vibration during nighttime hours (when
sleeping) than during daytime hours.
As discussed above, the estimated vibration level generated by a loaded truck at 25 feet is a PPV of 0.076
inch per second; the estimated vibration level generated by a small bulldozer at 20 feet is a PPV of 0.004
inch per second. At the nearest residential structure, a loaded truck passing by would cause vibration
that would be slightly more than barely perceptible but much less than distinctly perceptible, based on
the thresholds for transient sources in Table 5. Consequently, the Project would generate ground-borne
vibration from the use of loaded trucks. Such vibration may occasionally be vaguely perceptible by
existing residents but would not be considered substantial because it would be well below what is
considered distinctly perceptible.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 18 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF00370.19
City of Burlingame
CEQA Exemption Checklist
Table 5. Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Guidelines
Human Response
Barely perceptible
Distinctly perceptible
Strongly perceptible
Severe
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Continuous/Frequent
Transient Sourcesa Intermittent Sourcesb
0.04
0.2 5
0.9
2.0
0.01
0.04
0.10
0.4
Source: California Department of Transportation. 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual. September. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_
FINAL.pdf. Accessed: June 21, 2019.
Notes:
a Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event (e.g., blasting or use of drop balls).
h Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-
and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.
Operation of the small bulldozer would be considered a continuous source of vibration. The bulldozer
would generate vibration at 20 feet that would be substantially below the barely perceptible PPV
threshold of 0.01 inch per second, as shown in Table 5, above. In addition, the distance between the small
bulldozer and the residences would often be much greater 20 feet; therefore, vibration would be even less
perceptible in these instances. As such, use of the small bulldozer would not cause perceptible vibration at
existing residences. Furthermore, vibration-generating activities would be limited to daytime hours and
would not occur during nighttime hours. People are generally more sensitive to vibration during evening
and nighttime hours when they may be sleeping. For the reasons discussed above, the impact of
construction vibration related to annoyance at adjacent buildings is considered less than significant.
Criterion Section 15332(d): Air Quality
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to air quality
Regulatory Setting
!'�1G
►� ■
The Project site is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance
to assist lead agencies in the evaluation and mitigation of air quality impacts under CEQA. BAAQMD
thresholds, which are incorporated in the 2017 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality
Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines),23 establish the levels at which emissions of ozone precursors (reactive
organic gases [ROGs] and nitrogen oxides [NOX]), particulate matter, local carbon monoxide (CO), and
toxic air contaminants (TACs) would cause significant air quality impacts. The regulation of two
fractions of emissions of particulate matter is based on aerodynamic resistance diameters equal to or
less than 10 microns (PMlo) and 2.5 microns (PMz.$)• The air quality analysis below uses the 2017
BAAQMD thresholds to evaluate the potential impacts of the Project.
z3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality ActAir QuaJity Guidelines.
May. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/�/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_
may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: June 2019.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 19 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
Operational Emissions
Operational criteria pollutant emissions would be generated primarily from mobile sources (i.e., vehicle
trips). Other sources of emissions include consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape
equipment, along with energy use (e.g., natural gas).
BAAQMD provides screening-level sizes for land use projects in Table 3-1 of its CEQA Guidelines. As
stated in the guidelines, "if a project meets the screening criteria in Table 3-1, a project would not result
in the generation of operational-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors that exceed the
thresholds of significance."241f a project meets the criteria, then a detailed analysis of operational
criteria air pollutants (CAPs) is not required. The screening-level size for operational CAPs pertaining to
the "condo/townhouse, general"25 category is 451 dwelling units (DUs). Because the Project would
provide 19 DUs, it would meet the screening criteria. A quantitative analysis is not required.
Table 3-1 of the CEQA Guidelines does not include a screening-level size for parking structures. Parking
structures emit CAPs from vehicle trips and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, consumer
products, landscaping equipment). As discussed in Criterion Section 15332(d), Traffic, the new parking
structure would not generate new vehicle trips, relative to existing conditions. Therefore, the parking
structure would not result in any additional CAPs from mobile sources. Based on California Emissions
Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) defaults and a parking structure size of 6,000 gsf, area-source emissions
would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds.
The Project, which involves construction of a residential building, would meet the screening criteria and
would not result in the generation of operational CAPs and/or precursors that would exceed BAAQMD's
thresholds of significance. Similarly, the new parking structure would result in minor emissions that
would not exceed BAAQMD's thresholds. The Project would have a less-than-significant impact on air
yuality during operation and would not contribute a significant level of air pollution that would degrade
regional air quality within the SFBAAB.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the Project has the potential to create short-term air quality impacts through the use of
heavy-duty construction equipment, along with construction workers' vehicle trips, truck trips for
material hauling, earthmoving, the application of architectural coatings, and paving. Similar to
operational CAPs, BAAQMD provides screening-level guidance for construction emissions. The
screening-level size for construction CAPs pertaining to the "condo/townhouse, general" category is
240 DUs. Although the Project would result in 19 DUs, the Project would also require demolition
activity; therefore, according to the 2017 CEQA Guidelines, the Project does not meet the screening
criteria, and a quantitative analysis of construction-related CAPs is required.�b
Construction emissions would be short term, occurring for approximately 1 year. To minimize criteria
pollutant emissions, the Project would include specific design features. These include the use of EPA
Tier 4"final" engines, as described in Section 1, Project Description. Furthermore, the applicant would
implement best management practices (BMPs) to control fugitive dust during construction. The BMPs
are recommended by BAAQMD and required by the 2040 General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.
z4 [bid.
zs According to the CaIEEMod User's Guide, "condo/townhouse units are ownership units that have at least one
other owned unit within the same building structure."
26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
May. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/�/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_
mayZ017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: June 2019.
CEqA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 20 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 0037019
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
Criteria pollutant emissions generated by construction of the Project were quantified using CaIEEMod,
version 2016.3.2. Table 6 summarizes the results of emissions modeling. Model outputs are provided in
Appendix C. The modeling, as summarized in Table 6, was developed with use of a construction schedule
that begins in September 2019 and ends in February 2021.27 However, after the modeling was
completed, the construction schedule was updated (i.e., now beginning in August 2020 and ending in
January 2022). Because construction is now anticipated to commence in August 2020, the emission
results are considered conservative because on-road emission factors decrease over time.
Table 6. Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Project Construction (pounds per day)
PMio PMz.s
Construction Year ROG NOx CO Dust Exhaust Dust Exhaust
2020� 7 6 22 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
2021 3 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 — BMPs 82 BMPs 54
Exceed Threshold? No No — — No — No
Note:
a Demolition and Grading construction phases overlap during 2020. Table presents emissions during this
period of overlap.
BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMPs = best management practices
CO = carbon monoxide
NOx = nitrogen oxide
PMz.s = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter
PMio = particulate matter no more than 10 microns in diameter
ROG = reactive organic gas
As shown in Table 6, construction of the Project would not generate ROGs, NOx, or particulate matter
exhaust in excess of BAAQMD's numeric thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not result in the
generation of construction-related CAPs that would exceed the numeric thresholds of significance.
BAAQMD does not have quantitative threshold values for fugitive dust (PMz.s and PMio); however,
BAAQMD considers implementation of BMPs for fugitive dust during construction to be adequate for
reducing related air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. Compliance with BAAQMD BMPs is
required by Policy HP-3.12 in the 2040 General Plan and Policy SCA-3 in the Downtown Specific Plan.
Accordingly, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality during construction
and would not contribute a significant level of air pollution that would degrade regional air quality
within the SFBAAB.
Implement Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of Criteria Pollutants (HP-3.12
and SCA-3). The applicant shall ensure implementation of the following BMPs during Project
construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard requirements:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved access
roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
27 Although the previous overall construction schedule began in September 2019 and ended in February 2021, the
operation of heavy-duty equipment would only have occurred from April 2020 to February 2021.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 21 luly 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICf 00370.19
City of Burlingame
CEQA Exemption Checklist
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet-power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry-power sweeping shall be
prohibited.
. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks that are to be paved shall be paved as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
• Idling times shall be minimized, either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control
Measure, Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be
provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• A publicly visible sign with the name and telephone number of the person to contact at the lead
agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted. This person shall respond and take corrective
action within 48 hours. BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance
with applicable regulations.
Generation of Toxic Air Contaminants
The Project could expose sensitive populations to substantial pollutant concentrations from the
generation of TACs during Project construction and operation. Construction of the Project would emit
TACs in the form of diesel particulate matter (DPM) from heavy-duty vehicles and construction
equipment. Operation of the Project could emit TACs from vehicular traffic.28 BAAQMD recommends
analyzing traffic on roadways with more than 10,000 vehicles per day. The Project would be expected to
generate 67 net vehicle trips per day, which is considerably less than the 10,000 vehicles per day in the
BAAQMD recommendation. Moreover, Project vehicle trips would be made in personal vehicles, the
majority of which are gasoline operated and do not generate DPM. Therefore, any release of TACs from
Project traffic would be minimal. A quantitative assessment of operational health risks was not
performed because impacts would be less than significant. The reminder of this discussion focuses on
construction-related health risks.
BAAQMD recommends evaluating the potential impacts of TAC emissions on sensitive receptors within
1,000 feet of a project.29 For the purposes of air quality analysis, there are numerous sensitive receptors
within 1,000 feet of the Project, including adjacent residences and the Saint Catherine of Siena School,
which is 450 feet south of the Project site. The health risk assessment (HRA), discussed below, focuses on
risks at those locations. DPM concentrations and, therefore, health risks dissipate as a function of distance.
They are also lower at receptors beyond 1,000 feet.
ze The Project does not include any stationary sources of operational TACs (e.g., generators).
z9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmenta] Qua/ity ActAir Qualiry Guidelines.
May. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/�/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_
may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: June 2019.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 zZ July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF o0370.19
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
The HRA was performed to analyze the impact of DPM and PMz.s emissions from heavy-duty vehicles
and construction equipment on sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project site. Based on
BAAQMD's thresholds, a significant impact would occur if risks were to exceed 10 cancer cases per
1 million people, result in an acute or chronic non-cancer Hazard [ndex (HI) greater than 1.0, or result in
ambient PMz.s concentrations greater than an annual average of 0.3 microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3).
In accordance with guidance from BAAQMD and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA), the HRA evaluates the incremental increase in the cancer risk, chronic HI, and PMz.s
concentrations at specific receptor locations. Emissions of PMz.s from diesel-powered construction
equipment and vehicles were used as the basis for calculating health risks associated with DPM,
consistent with BAAQMD guidance. As discussed above, construction emissions were calculated using
CaIEEMod, version 2016.3.2.30 The analysis assumes an 11-month construction schedule for operation
of heavy duty equipment. Details regarding this schedule and the analysis are provided in Appendix C.
EPA's Air Quality Dispersion Modeling (AERMOD) system was used to model DPM and total PMz.s
exhaust concentrations at the three highest maximally exposed individual receptors (MEIRs). On-site
emissions were modeled as an area source, whereas off-site vehicle emissions were modeled as a line
source. The on-site release height was assumed to be 8.37 feet, which represents the mid-range of the
expected plume from frequently used construction equipment during daytime atmospheric
conditions. The release height for line sources, representing on-road trucks, was also 8.37 feet, based
on guidance from EPA.31 Daily emissions from construction equipment were assumed to occur over a
9-hour period between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. A receptor height of 5.9 feet at
the three highest MEIRs was assumed. The AERMOD input parameters included 5 years of surface
meteorological data from the SFO station, located about 3.2 miles west of the Project site, and 5 years
of vertical profile meteorological data from the Oakland Airport station.
The cancer risk from on-site DPM emissions was conservatively assessed for children under the age
of 2, beginning with exposure during the third trimester. Children under the age of 2 are the most
sensitive, according to OEHHA's age-sensitivity factors for cancer risk. It was assumed that children
would be continuously exposed to average concentrations of DPM over the entire duration of Project
construction. Modeling assumptions and outputs are provided in Appendix C.
The results for the construction HRA are summarized in Table 7 and compared to BAAQMD's thresholds.
All risks would be below the thresholds with implementation of design features, including Tier 4
equipment, and BAAQMD's recommended BMPs. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Cumulative Health Risk Assessment
Health impacts associated with the Project have been combined with health impacts from off-site sources
to create an estimate of the cumulative impact. This combination of risks is conservative in that it assumes
that the impacts from all sources are occurring within the same time frame.
3o California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2016. CaIEEMod. Version 2016.3.2. Available:
http://www.cal eemod.com/.
31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Haul Road Workgroup Final ReportSubmission. March 2. Available:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/reports/Haul_Road_Workgroup-Final_Report_Package-20120302.pdf.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 23 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICf 00370.19
City of Burlingame
CEQA Exemption Checklist
Table 7. Summary of Health Risk Assessment for DPM and PMz.s Emissions during Construction
Receptor Designation
MEIR
Excess Lifetime Maximum Annual Average PMz.s
Cancer Risk Maximum Concentration
(in 1 million) Chronic HI (µg/m3)
7.13 0.01 0.05
Second-highest MEIR 6.97 0.01
Third-highest MEIR 6.66 0.01
BAAQMD Thresholds 10 1
Source: Appendix C.
Note: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
0.0 5
0.05
0.3
BAAQMD recommends using its online screening tools to evaluate TAC emissions from stationary and
mobile sources within 1,000 feet of a project site. The screening tools provide conservative estimates of
the extent of the contribution from existing TAC sources to the cancer risk, H[, and/or PMz.s concentrations
in a community. As summarized in Table 8, sources of TAC emissions near the Project site indude one gas
dispensing facility, one sub-slab depressurization system, one diesel generator, two soil vapor extraction
systems, and one coating operation. Screening values for the gas station were determined with use of
BAAQMD's Stationary-Source Screening Analysis Tool. The screening values were refined using BAAQMD's
Gasoline Dispensing Facility Distance Multiplier Tool because the gas station is more than 66 feet from the
three highest MEIRs (see Appendix C for further information). Health risk values for the non-gas
dispensing facilities were calculated using BAAQMD's Health Risk Calculator, based on emissions data
provided by BAAQMD and refined to represent the distance from the facility to the three highest MEIRs
(see Appendix C for further information). Screening values for the cancer risk and PMz.s concentrations at
railways, highways, and major roadways were determined using data provided by BAAQMD, which are
based on the cancer risk and PMz.s concentrations in a 20- by 20-meter grid in the San Francisco Bay Area.
These discrete values were then interpolated to estimate the cancer risk and PMzs concentrations at the
three highest MEIRs. The cumulative increase in the cancer risk, chronic HI, and PMzs concentrations from
existing TAC sources and the Project are compared to BAAQMD's cumulative thresholds in Table 8.
As shown in Table 8, combined total cumulative cancer risks, hazard impacts, and PMz.s concentrations at
the three highest MEIRs would not exceed BAAQMD's thresholds. Therefore, the contribution of the
Project to a significant impact would not be considerable. This impact would be less than significant.
Odors
Typical odor sources are generally associated with municipal, industrial, or agricultural land uses, such
as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food
manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts
depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speed and direction; and the
sensitivity of receptors. As a residential development, the Project would not be expected to generate
significant odors. Land uses immediately surrounding the Project site include mixed commercial and
light industrial land uses, which would also not be expected to generate significant odors. Therefore, the
Project would have a less-than-significant impact related to odors.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 24 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
Table 8. Summary of Risks and Hazards from nearby TAC Sources
CEQA Exemption Checklist
Cancer Risk PMZ.s Concentration
Source (in 1 million) Chronic HI (µg/m3)
ME/R
Project construction 7.13 0.01 0.05
Stationary sources 4.05 0.02 < 0.01
Railways 6.78 0 0.01
Highways 6.39 0 0.14
Roadways 0.08 0 < 0.01
Total: 24 0.03 0.21
Second-highest MEIR
Project construction 6.97 0.01 0.05
Stationary sources 4.89 0.02 < 0.01
Railways 7.08 0 0.01
Highways 6.44 0 0.14
Roadways 0.08 0 < 0.01
Total: 26 0.03 0.21
Third-highest MEIR
Project construction 6.66 0.01 0.05
Stationary sources 4.44 0.02 < 0.01
Railways 6.97 0 0.01
Highways 6.42 0 0.14
Roadways 0.08 0 < 0.01
Total: 25 0.03 0.21
BAAQMD Cumulative Threshold 100 10 0.80
Exceeds? No No No
Source: Appendix C.
Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
The cancer risk, chronic HI, and PMz.s for gas stations are scaled, based on the Gasoline Dispensing Facility
Distance Multiplier Tool, per BAAQMD guidance.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 25 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
Criterion Section 15332(d): Water Quality
CEQA Exemption Checklist
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to water quality
Existing Conditions
!'�G
►� ■
The Project site is within the San Mateo Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries watershed,32 which
drains much of the eastern portion of San Mateo County into San Francisco Bay (Bay). The Bay is
approximately 1 mile north of the Project site. Local drainage is managed by urban storm sewers. The
existing site includes two residential structures, pavement, and a small landscaped yard. Groundwater
on-site occurs at a depth of 15 to 20 feet below the ground surface.33 The groundwater gradient is
generally toward the north-northeast but shows significant seasonal variability. Several leaking
underground storage tank sites and other cleanup sites are in the vicinity of the Project site. Although
these have contributed to groundwater contamination near the site, on-site groundwater was not
identified as contaminated. There are no leaking underground storage tanks present on the 128 Lorton
Avenue property. The full extent of groundwater and other contamination is further discussed in
Criterion 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites.
Project Conditions
Stormwater runoff from the Project site ultimately drains into the Bay. Currently, the Project site
includes two residential buildings, surface pavement, and a small front lawn area. The Project would
decrease the amount of pervious area by approximately 1,570 sf. Runoff from the Project site would be
directed to permeable pavers, which would be installed as a part of this Project. Runoff would eventually
be directed to a storm drain that would be extended as a part of the Project.
Surface water runoff from the Project site would be regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), which is enforced locally by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board (Regional Water Board) and the City's SCAs. Because of the high potential for
contaminated soil vapors on-site, which could intrude into groundwater, any work on the site will need
to be conducted in coordination with the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health and
the Regional Water Board. Compliance with existing stormwater control regulations and the City's SCAs
would ensure that the Project would not result in any significant effects related to water quality.
Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the requirement of the Class 32 exemption under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15332(d) regarding Project impacts on water quality.
Stormwater Runoff
The Project would be required to adhere to the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) under Regional
Water Board Order R2-2015-0049. Per the MRP, the Project would be required to implement BMPs
during construction. These BMPs would include measures for erosion control, runon and runoff control,
3z U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. San Francisco Bay Delta Watershed Map. Last updated: March 5,
2019. Region 9 GIS/Technology Center. Available: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/
index.html?appid=387531acOc094da5b61396890958fca6. Accessed: August 2019.
33 RNC Environmental, LLC. 2019. Phase l Environmental Site Assessment: 128 Lorton, APN 029-231-210, 128 Lorton
Avenue, Burlrngame, San Mateo Counry, California. February 11, page 6. (RNC Project Number 1605A.) Prepared
for Pacific West Communities, lnc., Eagle, 1D.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 26 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project iCF 00370.19
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
sediment control, active treatment systems, good site management, and non-stormwater management
(see Section C.6.c of the MRP). Implementation of these BMPs during construction would reduce or
eliminate pollutants associated with construction activities in stormwater runoff.
Stormwater runoff during the operational phase of the Project would be subject to Provision C.3 of the
MRP, which requires the Project to implement stormwater design features. The Project would satisfy
MRP requirements by installing permeable pavers (with a water barrier for foundation protection).
Runoff would be directed to these permeable pavers and eventually directed to a storm drain, which
would be extended as a part of the Project. Compliance with existing stormwater regulations would
ensure that both construction and operation of the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts
on water quality related to stormwater runoff.
Groundwater
As described in greater detail in Criterion 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites, although the site is not
known to contain contaminated groundwater, contaminated groundwater is present nearby. Therefore,
the Project site very likely contains contaminated soil vapors. These soil vapors could intrude upon
groundwater resources and cause groundwater contamination. Therefore, the applicant would
incorporate construction design strategies that would ensure that soil vapors would not travel down
pathways created during Project construction (e.g., along utility corridors, in elevator shafts, etc.). In
addition, if required to comply with air quality standards, the Project would install a sub-slab vapor
barrier and possibly a positive ventilation system to protect indoor air quality
Because the proposed building would be constructed at grade, significant excavation is not expected;
dewatering is therefore unlikely to be required as part of Project construction. However, if construction
occurs during a period with high groundwater levels and temporary dewatering is required, any
encountered groundwater would be tested for contaminants. Furthermore, special handling and
disposal procedures would be implemented, and the Regional Water Board would be notified. If
contaminated groundwater is encountered, the applicant would be required to comply with the Regional
Water Board's Volatile Organic Compounds and Fuel General Permit (Order No. R2-2017-0048).
Although contaminated groundwater is known to occur at the surface parking lot across the street, a
groundwater remediation system is in operation at the site to address groundwater and soil vapor
contamination concerns.
Prior to receiving a building permit or other construction-related permit, final design would be
approved by the Burlingame Department of Public Works. Furthermore, although it is not currently
known if dewatering will be required, permanent groundwater dewatering is not allowed in the
Downtown Specific Plan area, in accordance with SCA-1. Compliance with SCA-1, design strategies, and
existing regulations would ensure that the Project's potential impact related to groundwater would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Prohibit Permanent Groundwater Dewatering (SCA-1). For development under the Downtown
Specific Plan, if subgrade structures are proposed, the applicant shall prepare a geotechnical study
to identify the depth to the seasonal high water table at the Project site. No permanent groundwater
dewatering shall be allowed. Instead, all residential uses must be elevated to above the seasonal
high water table, and all areas for non-residential uses shall be flood proofed and anchored, in
accordance with floodplain development requirements, to the design depth, as recommended by the
geotechnical engineer. The final design shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer and
approved by the Burlingame Department of Public Works prior to receiving a building permit.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 2� July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
Criterion Section 15332(e): Utilities and Public Services
The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
CEQA Exemption Checklist
�
►� ■
The Project site is in an urban area that is already served by all necessary municipal utilities (i.e., water,
wastewater, stormwater, solid waste) and public services (i.e., fire, police, schools). The city's current
population of approximately 30,118 is served by existing utilities and public service providers.34 The
Project would include the construction of 19 units. Using the cirywide persons-per-household ratio of
2.49,35 the Project could induce population growth with the addition of up to 47 new residents.36 However,
the anticipated population growth at the Project site would be consistent with the growth anticipated in
the 2040 General Plan Housing Element and the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. As discussed below,
the Project would be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Water. The City of Burlingame purchases all of its potable water from the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC) regional water system. Approximately 85 percent of the water supply originates in
the Hetch Hetchy watershed in Yosemite National Park, then f]ows down the Tuolumne River to Hetch
Hetchy Reservoir. The remaining 15 percent of the water supply originates locally in the Alameda and
Peninsula watershed and is stored in six different reservoirs in Alameda and San Mateo Counties.37
According to the City of Burlingame 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the city's average
water demand between 2011 and 2015 was a total of 1,458 million gallons, which is equivalent to
3.99 million gallons per day (mgd), or 76 percent of the city's allotted 5.23 mgd.38
According to the 2015 UWMP for the city of Burlingame, daily residential per capita water use in the city
of Burlingame was 113 gallons per day (gpd).39 The confirmed daily per capita water use target for 2020
is 135 gpd.40 Using 135 gpd as a conservative figure, and assuming a conservative on-site population of
47, daily water demand would be approximately 6,345 gpd. As explained above, the city uses an average
of 3.99 mgd of its 5.23 mgd water supply; therefore, adequate water supplies are available to serve the
Project site. No expanded or new potable water facilities would be required, resulting in a less-than-
significant impact.
Wastewater. The Burlingame Department of Public Works services the city's wastewater system.
Wastewater flows are carried to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) at 1103 Airport Boulevard,
which serves the entire city of Burlingame as well as approximately one-third of Hillsborough. The
average dry-weather flow of wastewater treated at the WWTP has remained fairly constant, at
34 Department of Finance. 2020. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2010-
2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Available: http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/.
Accessed: June 2020.
3s U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Persons per Household, 2014-2018. Available: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/
fact/table/burlingamecitycalifornia/HSD310217#HSD310217. Accessed: June 2020.
36 The addition of 47 residents as a result of the Project is conservative. The citywide average is 2.49 persons per
household, which includes single-family residences, multi-family residences, and mobile homes. Because the
Project is a multi-family use, with mainly one- and two-bedroom units, it is expected that the household size
would be significantly smaller.
3i Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Burlingame. June. Available:
https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Water/2015%20Urban%20Water%20Management%20PIan.
pdf. Accessed: August 2019.
38 Ibid. (see Table 3-2 of the UWMP on page 20 of 120).
39 Ibid. (see Table 5-2 of Appendix A).
40 Ibid. (see Table 5-1 of Appendix A).
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 Z$ July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City ot Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
approximately 3.0 to 3.5 mgd, which is approximately 55 to 64 percent of the facility's 5.5 mgd
capacity.41 As discussed above, the Project would demand approximately 6,345 gpd of water; therefore,
assuming a one-to-one ratio, the Project would generate approximately 6,345 gpd of wastewater.
Because the 1NWTP treats only a fraction of its permitted wastewater capacity, adequate wastewater
treatment capacity is available, and the Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Stormwater. Stormwater collection in the Project vicinity relies on a system of storm drains that
eventually feed into the Bay. The Project is expected to decrease the area of pervious surfaces by
approximately 1,570 sf. Nonetheless, the Project would include an on-site drainage system to
accommodate any increases in runoff from the site. Specifically, permeable pavers would be included as
part of the Project to help ensure off-site runoff would not increase over existing conditions. The existing
stormwater infrastructure has adequate capacity for serving the Project site; no expanded or new off-
site drainage facilities would be required, beyond minor improvements that may be included as a part of
the Project. Impacts related to stormwater drainage would be less than significant.
Solid Waste. The city is within the service area of RethinkWaste, also known as the South Bayside
Waste Management Authority. Recology San Mateo County provides recycling, composting, and garbage
collection services for residents and businesses in the RethinkWaste service area. Recyclables and
organic solid waste are taken by Recology trucks to the Shoreway Environmental Center in San Carlos
for sorting. The Shoreway Environmental Center is owned by Rethink Waste and operated by South Bay
Recycling on behalf of Rethink Waste. Solid waste and recyclables received at the Shoreway
Environmental Center are processed and sent to the appropriate facility, including the Corinda
Los Trancos Landfill (formerly Ox Mountain Landfill), which is in Half Moon Bay. The Corinda
Los Trancos Landfill had a maximum permitted capacity of 60,500,000 cubic yards and, as of December
31, 2015, a remaining capacity of 22,180,000 cubic yards. The Corinda Los Trancos Landfill has an
estimated closure date of 2034.4z
Construction of the Project would result in demolition waste from the pavement and the two buildings
on the site. In accordance with the Municipal Code, the applicant would be required to develop a
Construction Demolition and Recycling Plan to comply with the City of Burlingame Construction and
Demolition Recycling Ordinance (Chapter 8.17 of the Municipal Code). The code requires salvage or
recycling of at least 60 percent of construction-related solid waste. Therefore, construction of the
Project is not expected to have an impact on existing landfills. The Project would also generate waste
during operation, particularly in the residential building. In 2018, residential uses in the city generated
approximately 6.9 pounds per person per day of solid waste.43 Therefore, with a conservative
anticipated population of up to 47, the Project could generate approximately 324 pounds per day of
solid waste in the form of garbage, recycled material, and compost. Although trash receptacles would be
provided in the parking structure, they are not expected to generate a significant amount of waste. The
41 Ibid. (see page 56 of 120).
42 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019. SWIS Facility Detail: Corinda Los Trancos
Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-0002). Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41-AA-
0002/Detail. Accessed: August 2019.
43 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019. Jurisdiction Drversron/Disposal Rate
Summary (2007-current). Jurisdiction: Burlingame. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/
DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversionPost2006. Accessed: )une 2020.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 29 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
Shoreway Environmental Center is permitted to receive 3,000 tons of refuse per day.44 Once collected
and sorted at Shoreway, solid waste is transported to Corinda Los Trancos Landfill, which is permitted
to receive 3,598 tons per day.45 Solid waste generated by operation of the Project would represent
less than 0.05 percent of the permitted capaciry of Shoreway and Corinda Los Trancos Landfill,
respectively. As such, Shoreway and the Corinda Los Trancos Landfill would have adequate capacity to
serve the Project, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
Fire Protection Services. The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) provides fire protection services
within Burlingame, Millbrae, and Hillsborough. In total, the service area covers almost 15 square miles,
with a residential population of approximately 61,344.46 CCFD has 87 full-time employees, including
78 uniformed personnel.47 There are six fire stations in the CCFD's jurisdiction,48 two of which are in
Burlingame. The closest is Fire Station No. 34, at 799 California Drive, approximately 0.66 mile west of
the Project site.
In accordance with standard City practices, the CCFD would review Project plans prior to the issuance of
permits to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards. The Project would be
required to comply with all applicable CCFD codes and regulations. It would also meet CCFD standards
related to fire hydrants (e.g., fire-flow requirements, hydrant spacing) and the design of driveways and
access points. Under CEQA, the need for additional equipment and/or personnel to support fire services
is not considered a significant impact, unless new facilities would need to be constructed, resulting in
physical impacts. The increase in the number of residents at the Project site would be minor compared
with the CCFD service population. Therefore, the Project would not increase the need for fire services,
additional personnel, and/or additional equipment to the extent that new fire facilities would need to be
constructed, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
Police Protection Services. The Burlingame Police Department (BPD) provides emergency police
services within a 5-square-mile area with approximately 30,000 residents. BPD has one police station at
1111 Trousdale Drive. BPD employs 69 men and women, including 40 sworn officers, resulting in a ratio
of 1.33 officers per 1,000 residents.49 The 2040 General Plan Community Safety Element does not
designate a standard ratio for police officers to residents or a standard emergency response time.
However, it does require continued maintenance of optimal police staffing levels as necessary to meet
community safety needs.so
The Project site is currently served by the BPD. The addition of up to 47 residents would not
significantly degrade the existing police service ratio. Under CEQA, the need for additional equipment
and/or personnel to support police services is not considered a significant impact, unless new facilities
would need to be constructed, resulting in physical impacts. The increase in the number of residents
44 RethinkWaste. 2019. About Shoreway. Available: http://www.rethinkwaste.org/shoreway-facility. Accessed:
August 2019.
as California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019. SWIS Faciliry Detail: Corinda Los Trancos
Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-0002). Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41-AA-
0002/Detail. Accessed: August 2019.
46 Central County Fire Department. 2019. Fiscal Year2019-2020Adopted Budget. Available: http://www.ccfdonline.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ADOPTED-BUDGET-FY19-20-WEB.pdE Accessed: June 2020.
47 lbid.
48 ]blCj.
49 City of Burlingame Police Department. 2018. About Us. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/departments/
police_department/about_us.php. Accessed: June Z020.
so Ibid.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-30 luly 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist
would be minor compared with the BPD service ratio. Therefore, the Project would not increase the
need for police services or staffing to the extent that new police facilities would need to be constructed,
resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
Schools. The Burlingame School District (BSD) includes six elementary schools and one intermediate
school,sl with a total enrollment of approximately 3,350.52 Lorton Avenue is served by Washington
Elementary School.53 In addition, Burlingame High School, part of the San Mateo Union High School
District (SMllHSD), is also located in Burlingame.54In total, the SMUHSD serves approximately
9,000 students, and enrollment grows every year.ss
The Project would include 19 housing units. BSD uses a student generation rate of 0.2067 student per
housing unit for elementary schools and a generation rate of 0.0525 for middle schools.sb For high
schools, the state's generation rate is 0.2 student per housing units� Using these student generation
rates, the 19 new housing units could result in up to four elementary school students, one middle school
student, and four high school students, which would not have a significant impact on either school
district. In addition, non-residential development, including the Project, is subject to Senate Bill 50
school impact fees (established by the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998). Section 65996 of
the State Government Code states that the payment of the school impact fees established by Senate
Bill 50, which may be required by any state or local agency, is deemed to constitute full and complete
mitigation for school impacts from development. Therefore, impacts related to schools would be less
than significant.
s' gurlingame School District. 2018. Burlingame School District. Available: https://www.bsd.kl2.ca.us/. Accessed:
june 2020.
5z SchoolWorks, lnc. 2016. Level 1- Developer Fee Justification Study for Burlingame School District. Available:
http://bsd-ca.schoolloop.com/file/1236520987086/1403330967436/5172072493375788958.pdf. Accessed:
)une 2020.
s3 Burlingame School District. 2018. District Boundaries. Available:
https://www.bsd.kl2.ca.us/districtboundaries1617. Accessed: ]une 2020.
s4 Burlingame High School. 2018. Bur/ingame High School. Available: https://www.smuhsd.org/burlingamehigh.
Accessed: June 2020.
ss San Mateo Union High School District. 2018. Welcome to the San Mateo Union High School District! Available:
https://www.smuhsd.org/domain/46. Accessed: June 2020.
sb SchoolWorks Inc. 2016. Level 1- Developer Fee Justification Study for Burlingame School District. Available:
http://bsd-ca.schoolloop.com/file/1236520987086/1403330967436/5172072493375788958.pdf. Accessed:
]une 2020. Single-family and multi-family residential units combined.
57 State Allocation Board, Office of Public School Instruction. 2008. Enrollment Certrfication Projection. Available:
https://www.dgsapps.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/ab1014/sab50-0linstructions.pdf. Accessed: June 2020.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-31 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
This page intentionally left blank.
CEQA Exemption Checklist
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3 32 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
Section 4
Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist
In addition to investigating the applicability of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32), this CEQA
document also assesses whether any of the exemptions to qualifying for the Class 32 categorical
exemption for an infill project are present. The following analysis compares the criteria of CEQA
Guidelines Section 15300.2 (Exceptions) to the Project.
Criterion 15300.2(a): Location
]s there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project due to its location in a
particularly sensitive environment such that the project may affect an environmental
resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and
officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies?
�
■ ►�
This possible exception applies only to CEQA exemptions under Classes 3, 4, S, 6, or 11. Because the
Project qualifies under a Class 32 urban infill exemption, this criterion is not applicable. The Project is
located within a developed urban area; it is not located within a sensitive environment. Designated
hazardous concerns in the Project vicinity are evaluated under Criterion 15300.2(e), below.
Criterion 15300.2(b): Cumulative Impact
Yes
Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project due to significant cumulative ❑
impacts of successive projects of the same type and in the same place over time?
�
�I
Generally, the effects of the Project would be beneficial because it would help Burlingame increase its
housing supply, including the number of affordable housing units. The Project would place new
residents in an area that is well served by existing transit, thereby reducing residents' VMT. The Project
would include demolition of a development with four residential units within two buildings. The two
buildings would be replaced with a single structure containing 19 residential units, all of which would
be situated above an at-grade parking facility with 17 parking spaces. The development would be
located in an urban neighborhood that is already served by utilities and public services, including public
transportation. Any construction effects would be temporary and confined to the Project vicinity. In
addition, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with the
Downtown Specific Plan, SCAs, and other applicable regulatory requirements.
It is possible that construction of the adjacent parking garage (Lot N) as well as the residential
development across the street (Lot F), both of which are approved, would occur concurrently with
construction at 128 Lorton Avenue. The CEQA Class 32 infill exemption document for the Village at
Bur(ingame Project states that Tier 2 and Tier 4 equipment would be used during construction and that
a Construction Noise Control Plan, recommended BMPs from BAAQMD, and applicable SCAs from the
Downtown Specific Plan would be implemented.58 Likewise, the 128 Lorton Avenue Project would
require implementation of similar design features. Implementation of design features would ensure that
temporary construction impacts would not result in cumulative impacts. Therefore, the exception under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(b) does not apply to the Project.
58 City of Burlingame. 2018. The Village at Burlingame CEQA Class 32 /nfill Exemption. December.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 4 1 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
Criterion 15300.2(c): Significant Effect
Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist
Yes No
Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project because there is a ❑ �
reasonable possibility that it will have a significant effect on the environment due
to unusual circumstances?
No known unusual circumstances, as applicable to the Project or its site, would result in a significant
effect on the environment (see also the further discussion under Criterion 2[e] regarding hazardous
materials, below). Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c) does not apply to
the Project.
Criterion 15300.2(d): Scenic Highway
Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project because it may result
in damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, historic buildings,
rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a
state scenic highway?
. �
■ ►�
The Project site has no trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar visual resources that are
located within an officially designated state scenic highway. The nearest scenic highway, Interstate 280,
is approximately 2.3 miles south of the Project site, which is not visible from the freeway. Therefore, the
exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(d) does not apply to the Project.
Criterion 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites
Yes No
Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project because it is located ❑ �
on a site that is included on a list compiled pursuant to Section 6596Z.5 of the
Government Code?
The provisions of Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the "Cortese List." The
provisions require the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB), the California Department of Public Health (DPH),S9 and the California
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecyle) to submit information pertaining to sites
associated with solid waste disposal, hazardous waste disposal, leaking underground tank sites, and/or
hazardous materials releases to the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CaIEPA). As summarized in Table 9, the Project site is not identified on any lists compiled pursuant to
Section 65962.5 of the Government Code; therefore, an exception to the Class 32 exemption under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15300.2(e) does not apply to the Project.
Although the site has not been identified on any lists compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5, previous environmental assessments and investigations have identified residual soil
and groundwater contamination on the Project site. These potential hazardous materials concerns
associated with the Project site are discussed further below.
s9 Formerly the California Department of Health Services.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 4 2 July 2020
128 lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist
Table 9. Summary of Cortese List Search Resuits for 128 Lorton Avenue, Burlingame, California
Government
Code Section
65962.5(a)(1)
659625(a)(2)
65962.5(a)(3)
Project
Responsible Identified
Agency List Description on List?
DTSC List of hazardous waste facilities where DTSC have taken No
or contracted for corrective action because the owner
failed to comply with an order or DTSC determined that
immediate corrective action was necessary to abate an
imminent or substantial endangerment.
DTSC List of all land designated as hazardous waste property or
border zone property.
DTSC List of probable occurrences of unauthorized disposal of
hazardous waste on, under, or into land that the city,
county, or state agency owns or leases. As of April 1,
2016, DTSC has not maintained or submitted a list of such
records to CaIEPA but indicated that it plans to do so in
the future.
65962.5(a)(4) DTSC
65962.5(a)(5) DTSC
65962.5 (b)
65962.5(c)(1)
65962.5(c)(2)
DPH
SWRCB
;n� :
65962.5(c)(3)
No
No
List of sites where a hazardous substance release has No
been confirmed by on-site sampling and a response
action is required.
List of sites in the Abandoned Site Assessment Program. No
DTSC concluded the program in the 1990s but no longer
maintains or submits a list of records to CaIEPA.
List of all wells with public drinking water that contain
detectable levels of organic contaminants or require
water quality analysis. Because all analyses required for
this list were to have been completed by 1988, DPH no
longer submits these records to CaIEPA. In addition,
DPH does not provide the locations of wells with public
drinking water.
List of all underground storage tanks for which
unauthorized release reports have been filed. The
SWRCB provides information about leaking
underground storage tank cleanup sites in its
GeoTracker database. Reports are filed each year, going
back to fiscal year 1996/1997. According to SWRCB,
both active and closed sites are included on the list.
List of all solid waste disposal facilities from which
there is a migration of hazardous waste into water.
No
No
No
SWRCB List of sites for which a cease-and-desist order or a No
cleanup or abatement order was issued that concerns a
discharge of wastes that are considered hazardous.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 4 3 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
Government Responsible
Code Section Agency List Description
Exceptions to Categoriwl Exemptions Checklist
Project
Identi�ed
on List?
65962.5(d) CalRecycle Former list of solid waste disposal facilities from which No
there is a known migration of hazardous waste.
Subsequent legislation (Assembly Bill 12Z0, the Solid
Waste Disposal Regulatory Reform Act of 1993)
superseded this requirement; lists compiled under
Sections 65962.5(c)(2) and/or (c)(3) should capture this
information.
Source: RNC Environmental, LLC. 2019; Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2019; State Water
Resources Control Board 2019.
In February 2019, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Project site in
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E1527-13. The Phase I
ESA reported that a recognized environmental condition60 exists in the form of soil vapor intrusion
originating from nearby sources of groundwater. This created a commingled plume of contaminants,
including petroleum-related volatile organic compounds and chlorinated solvents, in the
groundwater.bi This Phase 1 ESA stated that the sources of groundwater contamination are one-half
block north of the property, along Howard Avenue—specifically, within 0.1 mile for petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination (i.e., a leaking underground fuel storage tank) and 0.3 mile for other
chemical contamination (i.e., current and former dry-cleaning facilities). Monitoring reports
submitted to the SWRCB indicate that contaminated groundwater does not extend to areas beneath
the Project site.
Because the possibility exists that soil vapors would encroach upon the Project site, the applicant
would implement features to protect residents and indoor air quality. As summarized in Section 1,
Project Description, this could include construction design strategies, sub-slab vapor barriers, a
positive ventilation system, or proper disposal of potentially contaminated groundwater and soil.
Because the Project site is not on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government
Code, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(e) does not apply to the Project. Impacts
would be less than significant.
bo A recognized environmental condition, according to ASTM E1527-13, indicates "the presence or likely presence
of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property (1) due to a release to the
environment, (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment, or (3) under conditions that pose
a material threat of a future release to the environment; de minimis conditions are not recognized
environmental conditions."
61 RNC Environmental, LLC. 2019. Phase l Environmental Site Assessment: 128 Lorton, APN 029-231-210, 128 Lorton
Avenue, Burlingame, San Mateo Counry, California. May 12. (RNC Project Number 1605A.) Prepared for Pacific
West Communities, Inc., Eagle, ID.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 4 4 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
Criterion 15300.2(f): Historical Resources
Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist
Yes No
Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project because it may cause ❑ �
a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource?
The Project site is immediately east of Burlingame's central business district and approximately 250 feet
east of the Howard Avenue commercial corridor. The Project site is surrounded by one- or two-story
commercial and residential buildings that represent a range of construction eras. The Project site
contains two residential buildings from 1912. Although both of these buildings are more than 50 years
old, according to the inventory of historic resources that was conducted for the Downtown Specific Plan,
neither has the integrity needed to be considered a historical resource.6z Therefore, the Project site
contains no buildings, structures, or objects that can be considered historical resources for the purposes
of CEQA review. As a result, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
af any historical resources within the Project site. However, projects may have the potential to cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of adjacent historical resources. Substantial adverse
change would occur if new construction within the Project site were to alter the setting of adjacent
resources or if Project-related construction were to create ground-borne vibration and damage the
physical characteristics that convey the historical significance of the resources. There are no properties
adjacent to the Project site that have previously been listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in,
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)63 or California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR).64 Furthermore, none of the adjacent properties are included in a local register of historical
resources or identified in a qualified historical resources survey. Therefore, no property adjacent to the
Project site has been determined to be a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA review.
Two residential buildings at 120 Lorton Avenue and 124 Lorton Avenue were constructed prior to 1969,
based on information provided by the City.bs Although they are eligible with respect to age, they have
not been previously considered for CEQA historical resource status. The two- and three-story, multi-unit
buildings were designed in the Mid-Century Modern architectural style and incorporate exterior
walkways and balconies; the property at 120 Lorton Avenue also incorporates ground-level tuck-under
parking. These two properties are more than 50 years old and therefore may qualify for listing in the
CRHR. The properties adjacent to 128 Lorton on the opposite side do not contain structures; the
properties contain a recently constructed parking lot.
Although the two adjacent properties with buildings constructed before 1969 have not been previously
evaluated for eligibility for listing in the CRHR, the Project does not have the potential to cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of the adjacent properties. Construction of a multi-story
building within the Project site would not be expected to degrade the setting of adjacent age-eligible
properties to the point that their significance would be materially impaired, were they to be considered
historical resources under CEQA.
bz Carey & Co., Inc. 2008. Inventory of Historic Resources, Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, Parcel Database.
63 National Park Service. Z019. National Register Listings. April 4. Available: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/
nationalregister/upload/national_register_listed_20190404.x1sx. Accessed: July 2019.
64 Office of Historic Preservation. 2019. California Historical Resources. California State Parks. Available:
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/listedresources. Accessed: July 2019.
bs Hurin, Ruben. Planning manager, City of Burlingame. July 11, 2019—email to Erin Efner and Aileen Cole
regarding database underlying the Inventory of Historic Resources for the city of Burlingame.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 4 5 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist
The Project also does not have the potential to damage the adjacent age-eligible properties, were they to
be found eligible historical resources under CEQA. The equipment with the greatest potential to cause
ground-borne vibration during construction would be a loaded truck or a small bulldozer. As described
in greater detail in Section 15332(d), Noise, damage is not anticipated at any buildings in the vicinity of
the Project site. Ground-borne vibration created by Project-related construction activities would be
expected to attenuate to the degree that it would remain below the damage thresholds for "historic and
some old buildings" and "older residential structures" (the two property categories specified in Caltrans'
Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual that apply to the adjacent age-eligible
properties). As a result of the vibration analysis, it has been determined that construction related to the
Project is not expected to damage the adjacent age-eligible buildings such that their physical
characteristics would be altered. Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in
the historical significance of the adjacent age-eligible buildings, were they to be considered historical
resources under CEQA.
In consideration of the analysis outlined above, the exception under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15300.2(d) does not apply to the Project. Impacts would be less than significant.
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 4 6 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
Section 5
Conclusions
On the basis of the evidence provided above, the Project is eligible for a Class 32 categorical exemption,
in accordance with Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on City
threshold criteria, no additional substantial adverse impacts beyond those discussed above are
anticipated. Because the Project meets the criteria for categorically exempt infill development projects,
and because it would not have a significant effect on the environment, this analysis finds that a Notice of
Exemption may be prepared for the Project. No further review is needed.
CEQA Class 32 infill Exemption 5 1 July 2020
128 Lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19
City of Burlingame
This page intentionally left blank.
Conclusions
CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 5 2 July 2020
128 lorton Avenue Project ICF 00370.19