HomeMy WebLinkAboutIntial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration -800 Dubuque Ave
INITIAL STUDY
AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
800 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT
Lead Agency:
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
MARCH 2023
Prepared By:
Lamphier-Gregory, Inc.
4100 Redwood Rd, STE 20A - #601
Oakland, CA 94619
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
Introduction to this Document .......................................................................................................... 1
Public Review ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Information ........................................................................................................................... 1
Mitigated Negative Declaration ...................................................................................................... 13
Lead Agency Determination ............................................................................................................ 21
Initial Study Checklist ...................................................................................................................... 22
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................ 22
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...................................................................................... 22
Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................. 23
Agricultural and Forest Resources............................................................................................ 26
Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 27
Biological Resources ................................................................................................................. 36
Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 39
Energy ....................................................................................................................................... 41
Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................... 44
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................... 48
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 52
Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 59
Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 64
Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................... 65
Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 66
Population and Housing ........................................................................................................... 68
Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 69
Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 70
Transportation .......................................................................................................................... 71
Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 75
Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 76
Wildfire ..................................................................................................................................... 80
Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................................... 81
Document Preparers ....................................................................................................................... 82
Sources ............................................................................................................................................ 82
ii
page
TABLES
Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction ................................................... 29
Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations ............................................................... 31
Table 3: Construction and Operation Risk ....................................................................................... 33
Table 4: Cumulative Community Risk .............................................................................................. 35
Table 5: Construction and Operational Energy Usage .................................................................... 42
Table 6: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................ 51
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location .................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2: Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 7
Figure 3: Site Plan .............................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 4: Visual Model ....................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Building Sections .............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 6: Elevation, North and East ................................................................................................. 11
Figure 7: Elevation, South and West ............................................................................................... 12
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Attachment B: Cultural Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission Response
Attachment C: Energy Calculations
Attachment D: Transportation Analysis
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 1
INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCUMENT
This document serves as the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 800 Dubuque
Avenue project, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public
Resources Code Sections 15000 et seq.).
Per CEQA Guidelines (Section 15070), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be prepared to meet the
requirements of CEQA review when the Initial Study identifies potentially significant environmental
effects, but revisions in the project and/or incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the
applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects
would occur and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project as revised
may have significant effect on the environment.
This document is organized in three sections as follows:
• Introduction and Project Information. This section introduces the document and presents the
project description including location, setting, and specifics of the lead agency and contacts.
• Mitigated Negative Declaration. This section lists the impacts and mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Study and proposes findings that would allow adoption of this document
as the CEQA review document for the proposed project.
• Initial Study Checklist. This section discusses the CEQA environmental topics and checklist
questions and identifies the potential for impacts and proposed mitigation measures to avoid
these impacts.
Full project materials are available for review upon request from the Planning Department at City of
South San Francisco (see contact info below).
PUBLIC REVIEW
This Initial Study will be circulated for a 30-day public review period. Comments may be submitted in
writing by email or regular mail to the following address:
Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
Phone: 650-877-8535
Email: Christopher.Espiritu@ssf.net
PROJECT INFORMATION
All figures for the project information are included together on pages 6 through 12.
PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
Development of the project would require the following approvals from the City of South San Francisco:
Conditional Use Permit, based on a Community Benefits Agreement, to exceed the FAR that would be
allowed by right, Design Review, and a Transportation Demand Management Program.
Page 2 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
The project is required to comply with Municipal Regional Permit requirements related to stormwater
pollution prevention.
LEAD AGENCY
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
CONTACT PERSON
Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
Phone: 650-877-8535
Email: Christopher.Espiritu@ssf.net
PROJECT SPONSOR
Dubuque Center, L.P.
Contact: Justine Nielsen, SVP of Development, IQHQ
674 Via De La Valle Suite 206
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Phone: 858-779-1111
PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING USES
The 5.89-acre project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-021-030) is located in the City of South San
Francisco, California at 800 – 890 Dubuque Avenue. It is bordered by Dubuque Avenue and the U.S. 101
highway on the west and the Caltrain right-of-way to the east. The adjacent property to the north is
currently occupied by a Costco. The property immediately to the south supports PG&E transmission
lines and surface parking, and further to the south is a now-vacant former Lowe’s Home Improvement
store, currently used as a construction staging site. Figure 1 shows the project location. Figure 2 shows
the existing conditions.
The project site is currently developed with two one-story buildings and one two-story building, totaling
113,595 square feet of office/R&D (life science) use and associated surface parking.
The project site is within ½ mile of the South San Francisco Caltrain station. SamTrans provides bus
service primarily on the west side of U.S. 101, with some service on Oyster Point Boulevard to the north,
and commute.org provides shuttle service from the Caltrain station to/from the BART and WETA ferry
station.
The site is relatively level, with varying elevations above mean sea level of approximately 19.4 to 25.6
feet. The depth to groundwater is approximately 8.5 feet below ground surface and the groundwater
flow direction is to the southeast, generally toward the San Francisco Bay.
The project site does not appear on any regulatory lists for contaminated sites and there is no indication
of migration of contamination from nearby contaminated sites or warrant for regulatory requirements
at this site.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 3
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION / ZONING
General Plan Designation: East of 101 Transit Core
Zoning: East of 101 Transit Core (ETC)
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The project site is located between the Caltrain right-of-way to the east and U.S. 101 to the west. The
northern adjacent property contains a Costco store, and the southern adjacent properties contain PG&E
transmission lines with surface parking and a vacant large-format retail building (formerly Lowe’s). The
project site is at the western edge of the East of 101 area, which is a large employment area including
industrial, office, research and development, and commercial uses. To the west, across Dubuque Avenue
is U.S. 101, with commercial and multi-family residential uses fronting along Airport Boulevard on the
other side of the highway and residential neighborhoods beyond.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Overview and Building Massing
The proposed project would involve demolition of the three existing buildings and construction of three
new office / research and development (R&D) buildings. The project would be comprised of three
buildings, the north, south, and west buildings, for a total of up to approximately 900,000 gross square
feet. The north building would be the tallest at approximately 195 feet above grade, and the west and
south buildings would be approximately 179 and 130 feet above grade, respectively (including the
mechanical penthouses). The project would include an approximately 7,500 square foot event center,
approximately 6,600 square feet of food/beverage uses, an approximately 3,300 square foot bike room,
and an approximately 7,200 square foot fitness center. The buildings would be connected by a two-story
terrace, featuring a central plaza and courtyard that would provide open space and gathering and rest
areas. The project is intended to be a mix of R&D space and offices. Based on an average office/R&D
project employment density of 300 gross square feet per employee, a maximum of approximately 3,000
employees would be anticipated.
Note that in parallel with this analysis, the project may undergo minor design revisions that would result
in differences in building square footage and other minor details. This analysis presents the largest
reasonable assumptions for development of the project such that the actual project will fall within this
analysis.
The west building would be oriented along Dubuque Avenue, with the northwest side angled to draw
pedestrians towards the courtyard. The north and south buildings would be oriented along the internal
roadways. Ground floor facades would have clear glazing for transparent building entries. Building
entries would be protected by recessed entry portals that provide shelter from the wind and rain.
The ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 designates the project site as East of 101 Transit Core with a maximum
FAR of 1.0 by right, up to a maximum of 2.5 with the payment of a Community Benefits Fee, and up to
8.0 with a Community Benefits Agreement. The proposed project would have a FAR of approximately
3.33, which would require a Conditional Use Permit together with approval of a Community Benefits
Agreement. The site is zoned East of 101 Transit Core, under which office and R&D uses are permitted.
Figure 3 shows the site plan. Figure 4 shows a visual model of the project. Figure 5 includes building
cross sections. Figures 6 and 7 show the proposed building elevations.
Page 4 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Access & Parking
The project site is accessible by automobile, train, and bus, and would include on-site facilities for
pedestrians and bikes.
Rail: The project site is located less than ½ mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, part of a
regional rail corridor that provides connectivity between San Francisco and Gilroy. The project site is
also located approximately 2.5 and 3.0 miles from the San Bruno and South San Francisco BART Stations
respectively, which are served by BART’s Red and Yellow Lines.
Bus: SamTrans services the area through its 130, 141, 292, and 397 lines which stop at Airport Blvd. and
Linden Avenue.
Automobile/Truck: Vehicular access to the project site would remain from Dubuque Avenue. The main
entrance to the project would be located on the northwestern corner of the site. A perimeter road
would encircle the buildings leading to the below-grade parking areas. A secondary access point from
Dubuque Avenue would be located on the southwestern portion of the site. The sidewalk on the east
perimeter road would be maintained and the road would function as a shared space between vehicles,
bicycles, and pedestrians.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access: A sidewalk runs along the eastern side of Dubuque Avenue. Sidewalks
would be provided along project roadway edges. Bicycle access would be from Dubuque Avenue to
either access road.
Four levels of below grade parking would provide approximately 1,335 parking spaces, resulting in a
ratio of approximately 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office/R&D floor area (1,285 spaces) plus
visitor spaces representing approximately 20% of event center capacity (50 spaces for approximately
450 maximum attendees).
Utilities
Although the project will include a stubbed connection to the natural gas main to serve potential
connections to commercial kitchens, the new buildings are designed to operate with 100% electric
energy. The project would redevelop a site already provided with utilities and services. Localized lines
may need to be extended or relocated within the project site. (See Section 19: Utilities and Service
Systems for additional discussion of utilities.) In addition to on-site improvements and connections to
utility lines along Dubuque Avenue, off-site utility improvements are proposed as a part of the project as
follows:
• The project proposes to underground the existing above-ground electrical lines along the
project site frontage on Dubuque Avenue (approximately 462 linear feet) in coordination with
PG&E.
• The project is also proposing upsizing of the existing 8-inch sewer main along the southeastern
property line of the project to a 10-inch sewer main for approximately 1,400 linear feet along
the project site and south to the existing 10-inch main that crosses the Caltrain tracks (the
junction is at manhole sJ2750, near the southern edge of the 720 Dubuque Avenue parcel). The
project is also proposing to rehabilitate this approximately 200 linear foot length across the
Caltrain tracks (between manhole sJ2750 and Poletti Way) in place, which could include
sliplining, cured in place pipe, pipe bursting, or replacement of the existing pipe with a new 10-
inch sewer main.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 5
Construction
Project construction activities are anticipated to span approximately 4 years with an assumed start for
purposes of this analysis in mid-2023 or later. 4 Demolition and site preparation would take
approximately 4 months. Excavation work would run approximately the next 9 months, followed by
building construction over about 26 months and finishing/paving/landscaping over about 6 months.
Once leased, tenant improvements would follow to the interior of the buildings and are likely to take
approximately an additional 3 months or more. The buildings are currently expected to be operational
as early as mid-2027.
The project would involve removal of 331,000 cubic yards of soil and excavation for subsurface parking
extending to depths of up to about 50 feet below ground surface. Up to 18 months of construction
dewatering would be necessary during excavation as further discussed in Section 7: Geology and Soils
and Section 10: Hydrology and Water Quality. Several subsurface investigations were completed
between 2015 and 2022, and concluded, most recently, that while small areas of residual soil
contamination may exist across the area, the risk of significant hazardous materials requiring
remediation is low or non-existent. Specifically, certain metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were found
sporadically across the site at levels that are not anticipated to require special disposal arrangements.
Because the majority of site soils will be excavated to accommodate subterranean parking, residual soil
and groundwater impacts will be removed from the site, resulting in a cumulatively cleaner site. Soil and
groundwater handling are detailed in Section 9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
4 While this analysis was performed with an assumption of a construction start in mid-2023, if construction is initiated later,
impacts would be the same or lessened (due to increasing emissions controls) from those analyzed here.
Page 6 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Figure 1: Project Location
Source: Hexagon, 2023, modified
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 7
Figure 2: Existing Conditions
Source: Project Plan Set, dated October 31, 2022
Page 8 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Figure 3: Site Plan
Source: Project Plan Set, dated October 31, 2022, as modified by Hexagon
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 9
Figure 4: Visual Model
Source: Project Plan Set, dated October 31, 2022
Page 10 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Figure 5: Building Sections
Source: Project Plan Set, dated October 31, 2022
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 11
Figure 6: Elevations, North and East
Source: Project Plan Set, dated October 31, 2022
Page 12 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Figure 7: Elevations, South and West
Source: Project Plan Set, dated October 31, 2022
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 13
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND SETTING
This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the 800 Dubuque Avenue project. See the
Introduction and Project Information section of this document for details of the project.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION
The following is a list of potential project impacts and the mitigation measures recommended to reduce
these impacts to a less than significant level. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist section of this document
for a more detailed discussion.
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
Air Quality, Construction Emissions: Construction activities can result in emissions and fugitive dust.
While the project emissions would be below criteria pollutant threshold levels, the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) considers dust generated by grading and construction
activities to be a significant impact associated with project development if uncontrolled, and
recommends implementation of construction mitigation measures to reduce construction-related
emissions and dust for all projects, regardless of comparison to their construction-period thresholds.
These measures were adopted as part of the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 EIR (GP-MM-Air-1a) and
would be applicable to the project. Mitigation Measure Air-2 would be implemented to reduce
potential health risks from project construction emissions.
General Plan Mitigation Measures
GP-MM-Air-1a: Basic Construction Management Practices. [The project
applicant / owner / sponsor] shall incorporate the following Basic
Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD):
i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times
per day.
ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site
shall be covered.
iii) All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be
removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per
day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be
completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as
possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Page 14 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure
Air-2: Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter During Construction. The project
applicant / owner / sponsor shall implement a feasible plan to reduce DPM
emissions by at least 50 percent such that increased cancer risk and annual
PM2.5 concentrations from construction would be reduced below TAC
significance levels as follows:
1. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for
more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier
4 emission standards for PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise,
a. If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available, alternatively use
equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines
and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB
Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether
achieve at least a 50 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust
in comparison to uncontrolled equipment; alternatively (or in
combination).
b. Use of electrical or non-diesel fueled equipment.
2. Dewatering pumps shall be powered by electricity.
3. Use of electric portable equipment following the site preparation and
grading phases.
4. Alternatively, the applicant may develop another construction operations
plan demonstrating that the construction equipment used on-site would
achieve a reduction in construction diesel particulate matter emissions by
50 percent or greater. Elements of the plan could include a combination
of some of the following measures:
• Implementation of No. 1 above to use Tier 4 or alternatively fueled
equipment,
• Installation of electric power lines during early construction phases to
avoid use of diesel generators and compressors,
• Use of electrically-powered equipment,
• Forklifts and aerial lifts used for exterior and interior building
construction shall be electric or propane/natural gas powered,
• Change in construction build-out plans to lengthen phases, and
• Implementation of different building techniques that result in less
diesel equipment usage.
Such a construction operations plan would be subject to review by an air
quality expert and approved by the City prior to construction.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 15
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
Biological Impact: Trees in the vicinity of the project site could host the nests of common birds that
are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Wildlife Code, so
the following mitigation would be applicable to prevent a “take” of these species under these
regulations related to disturbance during nesting.
Mitigation Measure
Bio-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Initiation of construction activities
during the avian nesting season (February 15 through September 15) shall
be avoided to the extent feasible. If construction initiation during the nesting
season cannot be avoided, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game
Code of California within 100 feet of a development site in the project area
shall be conducted within 14 days prior to initiation of construction
activities. If active nests are found, a 100-foot buffer area shall be
established around the nest in which no construction activity takes place.
The buffer width may be modified upon recommendations of a qualified
biologist regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage
of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity based upon
published protocols and/or guidelines from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS, CDFW) or through
consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW. The biologist may also determine
that construction activities can be allowed within a buffer area with
monitoring by the biologist to and stoppage of work in that area if adverse
effects to the nests are observed. The buffer shall be maintained until after
the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. These surveys would remain
valid as long as construction activity is consistently occurring in a given area
and would be completed again if there is a lapse in construction activities of
more than 14 consecutive days during the nesting season.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact: There are no known cultural or tribal cultural resources
at the site. However, given the moderate to high potential for unrecorded archeological resources and
Native American resources and proposed disturbance of native soils which also have the potential to
contain paleontological resources, Mitigation Measures Cul-1 through Cul-3 would address the
potential for unexpected discovery of such resources.
Mitigation Measures
Cul-1: Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP).
A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a WEAP training for all construction
personnel on the project site prior to construction and ground-disturbing
activities. The training shall include basic information about the types of
paleontological, archaeological, and/or tribal artifacts and resources that
might be encountered during construction activities, and procedures to
follow in the event of a discovery. This training shall be provided for any
personnel with the potential to be involved in activities that could disturb
native soils.
Page 16 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
Cul-2: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In
the event that previously unidentified paleontological, archaeological, or
tribal resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other
construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure that all such
activity within 25 feet of the discovery is ceased until the resources have
been evaluated by a qualified professional, who shall be retained by the
project applicant, and specific measures can be implemented by the project
applicant to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2
and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Cul-3: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate
Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the
event that human remains are uncovered during site preparation,
excavation or other construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or
ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery is ceased until
the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, which evaluation
shall be arranged by the project applicant, and appropriate action taken by
the project applicant in accordance with section 7050.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native American, in
coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission and in
accordance with section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.
Geological Impact: The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region. The project site includes
undocumented fill and construction activities require substantial excavation and dewatering. To
mitigate the potential for damage to structures or people, the following measure shall be
implemented:
Mitigation Measure
Geo-1: Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation report
prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design
Plans as prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper foundation
engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the
recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed
Professional Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting
Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant
with the California Building Code.
Hazardous Site Impact: The site is impacted by elevated concentrations of volatile organic
compounds, total petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals. Removal of impacted soil is proposed as part
of project construction activities and would be performed under Soil Management and Health and
Safety Plans.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-1: Implement Soil Management and Health and Safety Plans. The
applicant’s construction contractor shall implement soil management and
health and safety plans to facilitate compliance with applicable federal,
state, and local laws and regulations, applicable to earthwork activities at
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 17
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
the site as a result of the reported petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile
organic compound concentrations in the soil. These plans must be filed with
the City before construction permits are granted and are anticipated to
include the following components:
1. Soil Management Plan. Recent analytical results indicate that some site
soils contain slightly elevated concentrations of SVOCs, VOCs, TPH, and
certain metals. The soil management objectives for the site are to
minimize exposure of potentially hazardous constituents in soil to
construction workers, nearby residents and pedestrians, and future
users of the site. A site-specific soil management plan will be developed
based on recent comprehensive subsurface investigations covering the
site soils to depths exceeding planned excavations and the underlying
groundwater. The soil management plan is intended to facilitate
compliance with relevant federal, state, and local laws and regulations,
applicable to earthwork activities at the site as a result of the identified
contamination profiles. Some of the excavated material in the upper 5
feet may need to be disposed off-site at a Class II non-hazardous
regulated landfill and/or as unrestrictive waste based on disposal
facility’s acceptance criteria. The contractor will establish appropriate
off-site disposal locations and direct truck loading scheduling and
tracking and recording of all shipments per applicable regulations and/or
stockpile locations on the site to properly segregate, cover, moisture
control, and profile the excavated material. Further testing may instead
determine that no special soil handling is required. Unless from a
documented clean source such as a quarry, soil imported onto the site
will be tested in accordance with the “Clean Imported Fill Material”
information advisory developed by the California DTSC in October 2001.
2. Health and Safety Plan. The potential health risk to on-site construction
workers and the public will be minimized by developing and
implementing a comprehensive Health and Safety Plan (HASP). The
contractor will be responsible for developing and implementing the
HASP. The HASP plan will describe the health and safety training
requirements, specific personal hygiene, and monitoring equipment that
will be used during construction to protect and verify the health and
safety of the construction workers and the general public from exposure
to constituents in the soil, which is anticipated to include the following:
• the site will be fenced;
• exposed soil at the construction site will be watered at least twice
daily to prevent visible dust from migrating off-site;
• stockpiles will be covered;
• water will be misted or sprayed during loading of material onto
trucks for off haul;
• trucks transporting contaminated material will be covered with a
tarpaulin or other cover;
Page 18 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
• the wheels of the trucks exiting the site will be cleaned prior to
entering public streets;
• public streets will be swept daily if material is visible, excavation and
loading activities will be suspended if winds exceed 15 miles per
hour; and the fence will be posted with requirements of the safe
drinking water and toxic enforcement act (Proposition 65).
3. Health and Safety Officer. A site health and safety officer identified in
the Health and Safety Plan will be on site at all times during excavation
activities to ensure that all health and safety measures are maintained.
The health and safety officer will have authority to direct and stop (if
necessary) all construction activities in order to ensure compliance with
the health and safety plan.
4. Dust Control. During all excavation activities, dust control measures will
be implemented to reduce potential exposure. These measures may
include moisture conditioning the soil and covering exposed soil and
stockpiles with weighted down plastic sheeting to prevent exposure of
the soil. Dust control measures at a minimum will include:
• Covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting.
• Watering uncovered ground surface at the site; use of water will be
limited to prevent runoff.
• Misting or spraying of soil during excavation and loading.
• Emplacement of gravel and/or rubble plates on site access roads as
feasible.
• Trucks hauling soil from the site will be covered.
• Visible dust will be monitored during excavation and subsurface
demolition.
• The soil drop height from an excavator’s bucket onto soil piles or
into transport trucks will be minimized.
• Windbreaks will be deployed as necessary.
• If necessary, the area of excavation may be limited to reduce dust
generation.
• Site vehicle speed limits.
• Street sweeping.
• Termination of excavation if winds exceed 25 mph.
• Addition of soil stabilizers and other responses as needed.
5. Odor Control. If strong odors are noted during excavation activities, odor
suppression measures will be implemented by the General Contractor to
minimize odor during excavation activities.
6. Storm Water Pollution Controls. Storm water pollution controls will be
implemented to minimize storm water runoff and sediment transport
from the site. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 19
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
identify Best Management Practices for activities as specified by the
California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook
(Stormwater Quality Task Force, 1993) and/or the Manual of Standards
for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). The SWPPP
will include protocols (i.e., earth dikes and drainage swales) to control
storm water contact with, or runoff from, potentially impacted soil
during wet weather conditions.
7. Groundwater Management. Groundwater at the site has been
encountered at depths of nine feet to fifteen feet below ground surface.
Construction dewatering is anticipated based on development plans.
Any construction dewatering must adhere to a discharge permit
obtained from the South San Francisco Department of Public Works
Water Quality Control Division, Environmental Compliance Program or
the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Based on the analytical
results, the groundwater may need to be treated prior to discharge. Any
proposed groundwater treatment prior to discharge will require
analytical testing and approval from the appropriate regulatory agency
prior to discharging.
8. Contingency Plans for Unknown/Unexpected Conditions. The following
tasks shall be implemented during excavation activities if unknown
historical subsurface features and/or unanticipated hazardous materials
are encountered. Such materials may include unaccounted for
underground storage tanks (UST) and associated product lines, sumps,
and/or vaults, former monitoring wells, and/or soil with significant
petroleum hydrocarbon odors and/or stains.
• Stop work in the area where the suspect material is encountered
and cover with plastic sheets.
• Notify the General Contractor’s site safety officer and site
superintendent.
• Review the existing health and safety plan for revisions, if necessary,
and have appropriately trained personnel on-site to work with the
affected materials, once directed by the General Contractor.
9. Soil and Groundwater Management Completion Report. A Soil and
Groundwater Management Completion Report (SGMCR) will be
prepared that summarizes the soil and groundwater management
activities and any subsequent investigative and removal activities that
were completed during redevelopment. The SGMCR will present a
chronology of the construction events, a summary of analytical data, a
copy of all manifests from the site, and a description of all soil and
groundwater management activities at the site. The report will also
contain laboratory analytical results and figures, as appropriate, to
provide detail regarding the amount and type of contamination
encountered (if any) during various activities. The report will also
summarize any residual contaminants that were left on the site after
Page 20 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
completion of redevelopment activities and document that soil handling
procedures were implemented in accordance with this mitigation
measure.
Transportation Impact: Sight distance to the south at both project driveways on Dubuque Avenue
was found to be inadequate but could be corrected with the measures identified in Mitigation
Measure Trans-1.
Mitigation Measure
Trans-1: Demonstrate Adequate Sight Distance at Project Driveways. The
applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the sight
distance is adequate at both project driveways, which could include but is
not limited to the following measures:
• Coordination with the City to decrease the speed limit on Dubuque
Avenue to 25 mph.
• Coordination with the City to remove all line-of-sight obstructions
(vegetation, utility poles and sign boards) to create clear sight lines
within the City’s right-of-way to the south of the project site.
• Coordination with the adjacent property to the south (720 Dubuque
Avenue/PG&E easement) to push back the existing metal fence on the
southern boundary of the project site and remove vegetation to provide
a clear zone to the south of the project’s southern driveway.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 21
LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
On the basis of this evaluation, it can be concluded that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures to reduce these impacts
will be required of the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Page 22 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Environmental factors that may be affected by the project are listed alphabetically below. Factors
marked with an “X” (☒) were determined to be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one
impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the Checklist on the following pages.
Unmarked factors () were determined to not be significantly affected by the project, based on
discussion provided in the Checklist, including the application of mitigation measures.
Aesthetics Agricultural/Forest Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Material
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
There are no impacts that would remain significant with implementation of the identified mitigation
measures.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each CEQA issue topic. Four
outcomes are possible, as explained below.
1. A “no impact” response indicates that no action that would have an adverse effect on the
environment would occur due to the project.
2. A “less than significant” response indicates that while there may be potential for an environmental
impact, there are standard procedures or regulations in place, or other features of the project as
proposed, which would limit the extent of this impact to a level of “less than significant.”
3. Responses that indicate that the impact of the project would be “less than significant with
mitigation” indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will be
required as a condition of project approval in order to effectively reduce potential project-related
environmental effects to a level of “less than significant.”
4. A “potentially significant impact” response indicates that further analysis is required to determine
the extent of the potential impact and identify any appropriate mitigation. If any topics are indicated
with a “potentially significant impact,” these topics would need to be analyzed in an Environmental
Impact Report.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 23
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☒
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ☒
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
☒
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area? ☒
Under CEQA Section 21099(d), “Aesthetic… impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or
employment center project on an infill site located within a transit priority area shall not be
considered significant impacts on the environment.”
Accordingly, aesthetics is no longer considered in determining if a project has the potential to result in
significant environmental effects for projects that meet all three of the following criteria:
1. The project is in a transit priority area. CEQA Section 21099(a)(7) defines a “transit priority
area” as an area within one-half mile of an existing or planned major transit stop. A “major
transit stop” is defined in CEQA Section 21064.3 as a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served
by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with
a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the a.m. and p.m. peak commute
periods.
2. The project is on an infill site. CEQA Section 21099(a)(4) defines an “infill site” as either (1) a
lot within an urban area that was previously developed; or (2) a vacant site where at least 75
percent of the site perimeter adjoins (or is separated by only an improved public right-of-way
from) parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.
3. The project is residential, mixed-use residential, or an employment center. CEQA Section
21099(a)(1) defines an “employment center” as a project situated on property zoned for
commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no less than 0.75 and located within a transit
priority area.
Page 24 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
The proposed project meets all three of the above criteria because the project (1) is in a transit
priority area due to its location less than 0.5 miles from the South San Francisco Caltrain (rail) Station;1
(2) is on an infill site that has been previously developed and is fully adjoined by urban uses and public
rights-of-way within South San Francisco; and (3) is an employment center with a projected FAR of
approximately 3.33. Thus, this section does not consider aesthetics, including the aesthetic impacts of
light and glare, in determining the significance of project impacts under CEQA.
Nevertheless, the City recognizes that the public and decision makers may be interested in
information about the aesthetic effects of a proposed project; therefore, the information contained in
this section related to aesthetics, light, and glare is provided solely for informational purposes and is
not used to determine the significance of environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA.
a) Scenic Vistas
The project vicinity is predominantly developed with business park and industrial uses and is not
considered a scenic resource or vista in any vicinity plans. Policy LU-8.1 of the ShapeSSF General
Plan 2040 aims to “maintain and protect unique public views of the city, the bay, and local
landmarks from major thoroughfares and hillside open spaces.”2 CEQA generally protects against
significant adverse impacts to public views of scenic vistas, taking into consideration whether the
view is from a location at which people gather specifically to enjoy views and the environmental
context (i.e., if the area is a natural area or a developed urban area). While views of the Bay and
San Bruno Mountain are considered scenic vistas for purposes of this analysis, there are no
designated public viewing locations in the vicinity of the project. Views from public roadways are
discussed below to indicate the potential for changed views from public locations.
Views toward the Bay (to the east of the project site) and San Bruno Mountain (to the northwest
of the project site) from area roadways that would cross the site are already substantially blocked
at road level by existing area development, topography, and landscaping.
While areas of the adjacent development could experience some blockage of views of the Bay or
San Bruno Mountain, these are not public viewing locations where people gather specifically to
enjoy views and obstruction of private views is therefore not considered a significant
environmental impact under CEQA.
As noted above, this topic is being discussed as an informational item only because the CEQA
Guidelines have determined this type of project would not have a significant impact in this regard.
This informational discussion agrees with the statutory conclusion that the project impact would
not be significant.
b) Scenic Highways
U.S. 101 is not a designated or eligible State Scenic Highway corridor in the vicinity of the project
nor are there any scenic corridors identified in the area.3 The project would not be visible from a
1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, Transit Priority Area, accessed at:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=370de9dc4d65402d992a769bf6ac8ef5
2 City of South San Francisco, ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. February 2022, page 76.
3 California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Mapping System, available at:
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 25
designated or eligible State Scenic Highway. As noted above, this topic is being discussed as an
informational item only because this type of project would not have a significant impact pursuant
to the CEQA Guidelines. This informational discussion is consistent with the statutory conclusion
that the project’s impact would not be significant.
c) Visual Character
As a project located in an urbanized area, the applicable criteria would have been whether the
project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The
project is consistent with the zoning updates consistent with the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. The
project is generally consistent with the visual character of other office/R&D development in the
vicinity. Other than those discussed elsewhere in this section, there are no other policies or
regulations specific to scenic character that would be applicable to the project site.
As noted above, this topic is being discussed as an informational item only because this type of
project would not have a significant impact pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. This informational
discussion is consistent with the statutory conclusion that the project’s impact would not be
significant. Additionally, the City would review the proposed design as part of the approval
process, which can include considerations beyond those strictly environmental-focused.
d) Light and Glare
Sources of light and glare in the project vicinity include interior and exterior building lights, service
areas and surface parking lots, pedestrian lighting, and city streetlights. Light and glare associated
with vehicular traffic along major thoroughfares in the area also create sources of light and glare.
The existing level and sources of light and glare are typical of those in a developed urban
commercial/industrial setting.
Residential uses and natural areas are particularly sensitive to light and glare impacts. The project
is located in a commercial and industrial area with no immediately adjacent residential uses or
natural areas and has lighting consistent with that existing in the area. As a standard condition of
project approval, new lighting would be required to conform to the City’s standards that limit the
amount of light that can spill over to other properties through the use of downcast lighting
fixtures.
The project would result in development and lighting treatments typical of the existing
commercial and industrial urban settings and consistent with lighting standards to minimize
lighting on adjacent areas and would therefore not result in new sources of substantial adverse
light or glare. As noted above, this topic is being discussed as an informational item only because
this type of project would not have a significant impact pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. This
informational discussion is consistent with the statutory conclusion that the project’s impact
would not be significant.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways
Page 26 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and
forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
☒
a-e) Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The project site is located in a developed urban area adjacent to a highway. No part of the site is
zoned for, mapped as, or currently being used for agricultural or forestry purposes or is subject to
the Williamson Act. There would be no impact to agricultural and forestry resources as a result of
this project.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 27
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☒
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
☒
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☒
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of people? ☒
This section utilizes information from the Construction Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment
prepared for this analysis by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. and dated February 17, 2023, included in full as
Attachment A.
a) Air Quality Plan
Projects within South San Francisco are subject to the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, first adopted by the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (in association with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments) in 1991 to meet state
requirements and those of the Federal Clean Air Act. The plan is meant to demonstrate progress
toward meeting the ozone standards, but also includes other elements related to particulate matter,
toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases. The latest update to the plan, adopted in April 2017,
is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan.
BAAQMD recommends analyzing a project’s consistency with current air quality plan primary goals
and control measures. The impact would be presumed significant if the project would conflict with
or obstruct attainment of the primary goals or implementation of the control measures.
The primary goals of the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan are:
• Attain all state and national air quality standards
• Eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from toxic air
contaminants
• Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below
1990 levels by 2050 (This standard is addressed in Section 8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions.)
Page 28 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
The project would be required to comply with all applicable rules and regulations related to
emissions and health risk and would not result in a new substantial source of emissions or toxic air
contaminants (see items b-d below) or otherwise conflict with the primary goals of the 2017 Clean
Air Plan.
Many of the Clean Air Plan’s control measures are targeted to area-wide improvements, large
stationary source reductions, or large employers and these are not applicable to the proposed
project. However, the project would be consistent with all rules and regulations related to
construction activities and the proposed development would meet current standards of energy and
water efficiency (Energy Control Measure EN1 and Water Control Measure WR2) and recycling and
green waste requirements (Waste Management Control Measures WA3 and WA4) and does not
conflict with applicable control measures aimed at improving access/connectivity for bicycles and
pedestrians (Transportation Control Measure TR9) or any other control measures.
The EIR for the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 evaluated consistency with the Clean Air Plan and
identified a significant and unavoidable impact from buildout under the General Plan due to the
increase in VMT compared to population increase. Three mitigation measures were included in the
EIR to ensure individual projects could potentially be developed under the General Plan with less
than significant impacts. This project would implement relevant General Plan EIR mitigation
measures (indicated as “GP-MM”) requiring basic construction management practices to reduce
construction dust and emissions (GP-MM-AIR-1a, discussed under item b and included in full,
below), diesel emissions reduction during construction (GP-MM-AIR-1b, implemented through
analysis by Illingworth and Rodkin and Mitigation Measure Air-2, discussed under item c below), and
comply with the City’s TDM Ordinance (see Section 17: Transportation).
General Plan Mitigation Measures GP-MM-Air-1a and Mitigation Measure Air-2 requiring
compliance with basic construction management practices to reduce
construction dust and emissions, and a plan to reduce particulate matter by at
least 50 percent during construction, would also reduce the potential impact
related to conflict with the Clean Air Plan.
The project, therefore, would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan and have a less than significant
with mitigation impact in this regard.
b) Air Quality Standards/Criteria Pollutants
Ambient air quality standards have been established by state and federal environmental agencies
for specific air pollutants most pervasive in urban environments. These pollutants are referred to as
criteria air pollutants because the standards established for them were developed to meet specific
health and welfare criteria set forth in the enabling legislation and include ozone precursors
including nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gasses (NOx and ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), and
suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The Bay Area is considered “attainment” for all of
the national standards, with the exception of ozone. It is considered “nonattainment” for State
standards for ozone and particulate matter.
Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality
impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 29
single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality
standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant
adverse air quality impacts.4
BAAQMD updated its Guidelines for air quality analysis in coordination with adoption of new
recommended CEQA thresholds of significance on June 2, 2010.5 The most recent version of the
Guidelines is dated May 2017.
Project-related air quality impacts fall into two categories: short-term impacts that would occur
during construction of the project and long-term impacts due to project operation. BAAQMD’s
adopted thresholds are average daily emissions during construction or operation of 54 pounds per
day or operational emissions of 10 tons per year of NOx, ROG or PM2.5 and 82 pounds per day or 15
tons per year of PM10.
Construction and operational emissions for the project were modeled using the California Emissions
Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) version 2020.4.0. Project details were entered into the model
including the proposed land uses, Transportation Demand Management Plan trip reductions,
Peninsula Clean Energy carbon intensity factors, demolition/earthwork volumes, and construction
schedule. Model defaults were otherwise used. The CARB EMission FACtors 2021 (EMFAC2021)
model was used to predict emissions from construction traffic, which includes worker travel, vendor
trucks, and haul trucks. The CalEEMod results and EMFAC inputs are included in Attachment A.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would involve excavation, site preparation, building erection, paving,
and finishing and landscaping. Although these construction activities would be temporary, they
would have the potential to cause both nuisance and health-related air quality impacts.
BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds are average daily emissions during construction of 54 pounds per
day of NOx, ROG or PM2.5 and 82 pounds per day of PM10.
The results from emissions modeling for construction are summarized in Table 1 (and included in full
in Attachment A).
Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction (Pounds per Day)
Description ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5 *
Maximum Average Daily Emissions 13.16 32.74 1.48 0.95
BAAQMD Daily Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
* Applies to exhaust emissions only
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin 2023, Table 4 in Attachment A.
4 BAAQMD, May 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p. 2-1.
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. June 2, 2010. News Release
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Communications%20and%20Outreach/Publications/News%20Releases/2010/ceqa
_100602.ashx .
Page 30 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Construction-period emissions levels are below BAAQMD thresholds presented in Table 1. However,
BAAQMD considers dust generated by grading and construction activities to be a significant impact
associated with project development if uncontrolled and recommends implementation of
construction mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions and dust for all projects,
regardless of comparison to their construction-period thresholds. These basic measures are included
in ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 Mitigation Measure GP-MM-Air-1a, which would implement
BAAQMD-recommended best management practices to further reduce construction-period criteria
pollutant impacts.
General Plan Mitigation Measure
GP-MM-Air-1a: Basic Construction Management Practices. [The project applicant / owner /
sponsor] shall incorporate the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD):
i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded
areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall
be covered.
iii) All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, unless the
City The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as
soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are used.
With implementation of General Plan Mitigation Measure GP-MM-Air-1a, the impact related to
construction-period criteria pollutant impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Because construction-period emissions would not exceed applicable significance thresholds,
additional construction mitigation measures would not be required to mitigate impacts.
Operational Emissions
Emissions from operation of the project could cumulatively contribute to air pollutant levels in the
region. These air pollutants include ROG and NOx that affect ozone levels (and to some degree,
particulate levels), PM10 and PM2.5. Emissions of air pollutants associated with the project were
predicted using CalEEMod. This model predicts daily emissions associated with development
projects by combining predicted daily traffic activity, including reductions for existing uses and the
required Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan (see Section 17, Transportation, and
Attachment D), associated with the different land use types, with emission factors from the State’s
mobile emission factor model (i.e., EMFAC2021). Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on
the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased-in over time.
Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates utilized by
CalEEMod. The earliest full year of operation could be 2028 if construction begins in 2023. Other
inputs considered for operational emissions include the project’s two emergency diesel generators,
six cooling towers, solid waste generation use and water/wastewater use.
BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds are emissions during operations of 54 pounds per day or 10 tons per
year of NOx, ROG or PM2.5 and 82 pounds per day or 15 tons per year of PM10.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 31
Results of operational emissions modeling are included in full in Attachment A and summarized in
Table 2, below.
As shown in Table 2 below, the project’s operational emissions would not exceed applicable
thresholds and the project would not result in individually or cumulatively significant impacts from
operational criteria pollutant emissions.
Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations (Tons per Year for Annual)
Description ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
2028 Project Emissions, Annual 6.37 2.47 4.26 1.14
Project Generator Emissions 0.61 0.43 0.02 0.02
Project Cooling Tower Emissions -- -- <0.01 <0.01
2022 Existing Use Emissions 0.95 0.47 0.61 0.16
Net Total Operational Emissions 6.04 2.43 3.67 0.99
BAAQMD Annual Significance Thresholds 10 10 15 10
Exceeds Annual Threshold? No No No No
Project Emissions, Daily (lbs/day) 2.34 1.60 1.42 0.40
BAAQMD Daily
Significance Thresholds (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Daily Threshold? No No No No
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin 2023, Table 5 in Attachment A.
As vehicular emissions have improved over the years, carbon monoxide hotspots have become less
of a concern. BAAQMD presents traffic-based criteria as screening criteria for carbon monoxide
impacts, as follows.6 The project would implement a Transportation Demand Management Program
per South San Francisco Municipal Code to reduce project trips. The project is therefore consistent
with the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) of the San Mateo City/County Association of
Governments (C/CAG), which is the first threshold. The other two screening thresholds are whether
the project would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per
hour or to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is
substantially limited (such as a tunnel or underground parking garage). These hourly traffic volumes
are very high and much higher than those in the vicinity. For example, Grand Avenue is one of the
highest volume roadways in the vicinity, which carries less than 35,000 vehicles per day under
existing conditions. Spread over a day, that would be substantially less than 44,000 vehicles per
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p. 3-2, 3-3.
Page 32 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
hour. The project’s underground parking garage would serve only project vehicles with expected
parking for 1,335 vehicles, which is again substantially fewer than the threshold of 24,000 vehicles
per hour. Therefore, conditions in and around the project would be well below screening levels and
the project would not result in individually or cumulatively significant impacts from CO emissions.
The project is below significance thresholds established by BAAQMD and meets localized CO
screening criteria. As a result, the project would have a less than significant impact on regional air
quality during the operational period.
c) Sensitive Receptors
A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is defined by California law as an air pollutant that may cause or
contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present
or potential hazard to human health. In the Bay Area, a number of urban or industrialized
communities exist where the exposure to TACs is relatively high compared to other communities.
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the project site is in an overburdened community.7 An
overburdened community is a location that is especially vulnerable to air pollution impacts due to
high background levels of air pollution or other environmental pollution burdens, presence of
sensitive populations, and socioeconomic factors that may lead to inadequate health care or other
health stressors.8,9 BAAQMD sets more stringent health risk limits and public noticing requirements
for projects located in overburdened communities.
Substantial sources of TACs include, but are not limited to, land uses such as highways and high-
volume roadways, truck distribution centers, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome plating facilities,
dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities. The project would not
involve any of these uses. However, construction activity that uses traditional diesel-powered
equipment results in the emission of diesel particulate matter including fine particulate matter,
which is considered a toxic air contaminant and potential health risk.
Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, can be
particularly sensitive to air pollution. With respect to air pollutants, examples of sensitive receptors
include health care facilities, retirement homes, school and playground facilities, and residential
areas. The project itself is not considered a sensitive receptor. The closest sensitive receptors to the
project site are the multi-family residences approximately 350 feet to the west on the other side of
U.S. 101, as well as the Gateway Child Development Center YMCA, approximately 750 feet southeast
of the project site. These sensitive receptors are within 1,000 feet from the proposed project, which
is the screening distance recommended by BAAQMD. A community health risk assessment was
performed as included in full in Attachment A and summarized below.
For the purpose of assessing a proposed project’s impacts on exposure of sensitive receptors to risks
and hazards, BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds for a project in an “overburdened community” are a
project-specific cancer risk exceeding 6 in one million, a non-cancer risk exceeding a Hazard Index of
7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Figure 5-1.
8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. December 2021. Frequently Asked Questions for 2022 Permit Reform and
Implementation of Regulation 2-1 and 2-5 Amendments.
9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. December 15, 2021. Regulation 2 Permits Rule 1 General Requirements, Regulation
2-1-243
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 33
1.0 (or exceeding a cumulative risk of 100 in one million or a Hazard Index of 10.0 respectively),
and/or an annual average PM2.5 concentration exceeding 0.3 µg/m3 (or 0.8 µg/m3 cumulatively).
Construction activity that uses traditional diesel-powered equipment results in the emission of diesel
particulate matter including fine particulate matter, which is considered a toxic air contaminant and
potential health risk. The generation of these emissions would be temporary, confined to the
construction-period. Operational emissions from the proposed emergency generator would also
contribute to community risk.
Community risks assessments from project construction and operations were performed using the
recommended EPA dispersion model AERMOD to determine the potential health risks related to
diesel exhaust from construction equipment and the routine testing of the diesel generator, as
summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Construction and Operation Risk (Maximally Exposed Individual Sensitive Receptor)
Source
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM25
(μg/m3) Hazard Index
Project Construction (Years 0-4) Unmitigated
Mitigated 11.03
2.12 0.05
0.02 <0.01
<0.01
Project Generator (Years 4-30) 0.14 <0.01 <0.01
Project Cooling Towers (Years 4-30) - <0.01 -
Project Operational Trips (Years 4-30) 0.05 <0.01 <0.01
Total/Maximum Project Impacts (Years 0-30)
Unmitigated
Mitigated
11.46
2.15
0.05
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 6.01 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated Yes
No No
No No
No
1Project site and receptors are in an overburdened community as defined by BAAQMD.
Notes: Risks in this table are reported for the maximally exposed individual, factoring in age-sensitivity, and represent
increased lifetime risks. Risk to all area sensitive receptors would be the same or less than that shown in this table. See
Attachment A for additional detail.
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2023, Table 6 in Attachment A
As shown in Table 3, project-specific construction-period risk would be above applicable BAAQMD
thresholds without mitigation. ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 Mitigation Measure GP-MM-Air-1b
requires a project-specific health risk assessment when sensitive receptors may be impacted and
implementation of applicable risk reduction measures, a condition that is satisfied by the
Construction Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment included as Attachment A and
implementation of the identified Mitigation Measure Air-2, which sets requirements to reduce diesel
particulate matter (DPM) emissions by at least 50 percent.
Page 34 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Mitigation Measure
Air-2: Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter During Construction. The project applicant /
owner / sponsor shall implement a feasible plan to reduce DPM emissions by at
least 50 percent such that increased cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations
from construction would be reduced below TAC significance levels as follows:
1. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more
than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission
standards for PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise,
a. If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available, alternatively use equipment that
meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate
matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel
emission control devices that altogether achieve at least a 50 percent
reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled
equipment; alternatively (or in combination).
b. Use of electrical or non-diesel fueled equipment.
2. Dewatering pumps shall be powered by electricity.
3. Use of electric portable equipment following the site preparation and grading
phases.
4. Alternatively, the applicant may develop another construction operations plan
demonstrating that the construction equipment used on-site would achieve a
reduction in construction diesel particulate matter emissions by 50 percent or
greater. Elements of the plan could include a combination of some of the
following measures:
• Implementation of No. 1 above to use Tier 4 or alternatively fueled
equipment,
• Installation of electric power lines during early construction phases to avoid
use of diesel generators and compressors,
• Use of electrically-powered equipment,
• Forklifts and aerial lifts used for exterior and interior building construction
shall be electric or propane/natural gas powered,
• Change in construction build-out plans to lengthen phases, and
• Implementation of different building techniques that result in less diesel
equipment usage.
Such a construction operations plan would be subject to review by an air quality
expert and approved by the City prior to construction.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure Air-2, the project’s construction risks would be
reduced below the BAAQMD single source threshold for cancer risks.
Community health risk assessments typically also look at all substantial sources of TACs that can
affect sensitive receptors and are located within 1,000 feet of the project site (i.e., influence area).
These sources can include railroads, freeways or highways, high-volume surface streets, and
stationary sources permitted by BAAQMD.
The project vicinity includes three high volume roadways with average daily traffic (ADT) above
10,000 (Highway 101, Dubuque Avenue, and Airport Boulevard), Caltrain, and stationary sources
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 35
such as diesel generators and gas stations. Therefore, an additional cumulative community risk
analysis was completed. The cumulative cancer risk, hazard index, and annual PM2.5 concentrations
are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: Cumulative Community Risk (Maximally Exposed Individual Sensitive Receptor, Mitigated)
Source
Cancer Risk (per
million)
Annual PM25
(μg/m3) Hazard Index
Total/Maximum Project Risk, Mitigated (Years 0-30) 2.15 0.02 <0.01
Additional Cumulative Sources
U.S. 101, ADT 179,520 2.29 0.12 <0.01
Caltrain Zone 1 4.50 <0.01 <0.01
Airport Boulevard 0.15 0.01 <0.01
Dubuque Avenue 0.16 0.02 <0.01
Other stationary sources 15.97 0.39 <0.10
Combined Sources 25.22 <0.57 <0.15
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Notes: Risks in this table are reported for the maximally exposed individual, factoring in age-sensitivity, and represent increased lifetime risks. Risk to all area sensitive receptors would be the same or less than that shown in this table. See
Attachment A for additional detail.
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2023, Table 7 in Attachment A
As shown in Table 4, cumulative health risks to off-site sensitive receptors would not exceed
threshold levels.
Exposure risks for the maximally exposed individual are below threshold levels with implementation
of Mitigation Measure Air-2; therefore, the impact related to exposure to sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Other Emissions
Odors from construction activities are associated with construction equipment exhaust and the
application of asphalt and architectural coatings. Odors emitted from construction activities would
be temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond a project site’s boundaries. The proposed
office/R&D use is consistent with the type of development in the area and is not a use type
considered by BAAQMD to be a source of substantial objectionable odors.10 Therefore, the potential
for objectionable odor impacts to adversely affect a substantial number of people is less than
significant.
10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Table 3-3.
Page 36 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☒
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
☒
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☒
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
☒
a) Special Status Species and Habitat
The project site consists entirely of developed land and has been under industrial or commercial
usage since the 1920s. It is situated within a heavily urbanized area and is surrounded on all sides by
commercial or transportation uses. The site has little or no habitat value. There is a line of trees
along the eastern property line between the project site and Caltrain right-of-way, trees between
the project site and both adjacent lots, and trees in the central parking lot.
Special-status species are unlikely to occur in the project vicinity due to its highly disturbed and
urbanized nature. Plant and animal species that may occur in such areas would be common species
associated with urban, developed, and ruderal conditions throughout the San Francisco Bay area.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 37
The site does not contain protected habitat, is not in an ecologically sensitive area, and does not
provide connections for wildlife.11
Special-status and non-status nesting birds have the potential to nest in trees, shrubs, herbaceous
vegetation, and on bare ground and man-made structures within and adjacent to the project site.
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code of California protect bird species
year-round, as well as their eggs and nests during the nesting season. The list of migratory birds
includes almost every native bird in the United States. Project construction activities have the
potential to impact nests on site or in nearby areas if construction is initiated during the breeding
bird season. Indirect visual and acoustic disturbance from construction to off-site nesting birds in
adjacent areas has the potential to result in nest abandonment, which is considered a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Bio-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Initiation of construction activities during
the avian nesting season (February 15 through September 15) shall be avoided
to the extent feasible. If construction initiation during the nesting season cannot
be avoided, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California
within 100 feet of a development site in the project area shall be conducted
within 14 days prior to initiation of construction activities. If active nests are
found, a 100-foot buffer area shall be established around the nest in which no
construction activity takes place. The buffer width may be modified upon
recommendations of a qualified biologist regarding the appropriate buffer in
consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of
construction activity based upon published protocols and/or guidelines from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(USFWS, CDFW) or through consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW. The
biologist may also determine that construction activities can be allowed within a
buffer area with monitoring by the biologist to and stoppage of work in that
area if adverse effects to the nests are observed. The buffer shall be maintained
until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. These surveys would
remain valid as long as construction activity is consistently occurring in a given
area and would be completed again if there is a lapse in construction activities
of more than 14 consecutive days during the nesting season.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-1, which requires avoidance of nesting season or a
nesting survey and buffers from any nests as appropriate, the impact related to special-status and
non-status bird species would be less than significant with mitigation.
11 City of South San Francisco, ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. February 2022, Figures 48, 49, and 50.
Page 38 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
b, c) Riparian Habitat and Wetlands
No wetlands, riparian habitats, or other sensitive habitats are present at the site.12, 13 Therefore, the
project would have no impact with respect to riparian habitats and wetlands.
d) Wildlife Corridors or Nursery Sites
The project site is surrounded by roadways and other developed areas and does not connect
undeveloped areas or otherwise have the potential to act as a substantial wildlife corridor or
nursery site. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to wildlife nursery sites or
movement.
e) Local Policies and Ordinances
There are approximately 118 mature trees at the existing project site. As part of the proposed
development, the project proposes removal of 23 mature trees, two of which qualify as “protected”
trees under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Title 13, Chapter 13.30 of the City’s Municipal
Code). The applicant is required to comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance as applicable,
which requires demonstrating adequate replacement and obtaining a permit for removal of
“protected” trees.
Approximately 150 trees would be planted with the project’s landscape plan. This is consistent with
Policy LU-8.4 of the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040, which requires new developments to add street
trees along streets and public places, as well as Policy ES-4.3, which requires each removed tree to
be replaced with three new trees, when removal cannot be avoided.14
The project would have a less than significant impact regarding conflicts with local policies and
ordinances, including tree preservation.
f) Conservation Plans
There are no habitat conservation plans applicable to the project site. Therefore, the project would
have no impact with respect to conservation plans.
12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. Available at
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. Accessed August 2022.
13 City of South San Francisco, ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. February 2022, Figures 48, 49, and 50.
14 City of South San Francisco, ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. February, 2022.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 39
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to Public Resources Section 15064.5? ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Public Resources Section 15064.5? ☒
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ☒
a) Historic Resources
A records search was performed by the Northwest Information Center (Attachment B), which
indicated that the project site has no recorded buildings or structures listed with the historical
registries consulted. The existing structures were built in 1986. There is no potential to impact
historic resources, thus the project would have no impact on historic resources.
b, c) Archaeological Resources and Human Remains
The records search performed by the Northwest Information Center, which indicated that while
there are no known cultural resources present in the project area, there is a moderately high
potential for the inadvertent discovery of previously unrecorded Native American and historic-
period archaeological resources based on the characteristics of the site and history of the region. A
record search of the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File was completed for the
project and indicated there are no known sacred lands present in the vicinity of the site (see
Attachment B). See Section 18: Tribal Cultural Resources for additional discussion of this topic.
Although previous studies included field survey of the project site, significant excavation and below-
grade levels are proposed, which would disturb previously-undisturbed soils well below the field
survey levels. Construction activities associated with the project would include excavation extending
approximately 50 feet below the surface in the area of the parking garage. Given the moderately
high potential for unrecorded archeological resources and Native American resources, Mitigation
Measures Cul-1 through Cul-3 shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measures
Cul-1: Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). A
qualified archaeologist shall conduct a WEAP training for all construction
personnel on the project site prior to construction and ground-disturbing
activities. The training shall include basic information about the types of
paleontological, archaeological, and/or tribal artifacts and resources that might
be encountered during construction activities, and procedures to follow in the
Page 40 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
event of a discovery. This training shall be provided for any personnel with the
potential to be involved in activities that could disturb native soils.
Cul-2: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the
event that previously unidentified paleontological, archaeological, or tribal
resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other
construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure that all such
activity within 100 feet of the discovery is ceased until the resources have been
evaluated by a qualified professional, who shall be retained by the project
applicant, and specific measures can be implemented by the project applicant to
protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the
California Public Resources Code. If protections are required, they must be
approved by the Economic and Community Development Department before
work can resume.
Cul-3: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in
Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that
human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other
construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure that all such
activity within 25 feet of the discovery is ceased until the remains have been
evaluated by the County Coroner, which evaluation shall be arranged by the
project applicant, and appropriate action taken by the project applicant in
accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or, if
the remains are Native American, in coordination with the Native American
Heritage Commission and in accordance with section 5097.98 of the California
Public Resources Code.
These mitigation measures are consistent with and expand upon ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 Policy
ES-10.5, which would require all work to cease within 100 feet if significant historic or prehistoric
archaeological artifacts are discovered during construction or grading activities until the resources
can be examined by a qualified archaeologist, and if necessary, protected with a plan approved by
the Economic and Community Development Department. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
Cul-1, Cul-2, and Cul-3 would reduce the impacts associated with possible disturbance of
unidentified cultural resources at the project site to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 41
6. ENERGY
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☒
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency? ☒
a, b) Energy
The threshold of significance related to energy use is whether the project would result in wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct state or
local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
The project would include short-term demolition and construction activities that would consume
energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment), gasoline (e.g.
vehicle trips by construction workers), and electricity (e.g., power tools). Energy would also be used
for conveyance of water used in dust control, transportation and disposal of construction waste, and
energy used in production and transport of construction materials.
During operation, energy demand from the project would include fuel consumed by employees ’and
delivery vehicles, and electricity consumed by the proposed structures, including lighting, research
equipment, water conveyance, heating and air conditioning.
Table 5 shows the project’s estimated total construction energy consumption and annual energy
consumption.
As shown in Table 5, project construction would require what equates to 123,942 MMBtu of energy
use. The project would implement construction management practices per Mitigation Measure GP-
MM-Air-1a (See Section 3: Air Quality). While focused on emissions and dust reduction, the
construction management practices would also reduce energy consumption through anti-idling
measures and proper maintenance of equipment. The project would comply with the requirements
of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) to divert a minimum of 65 percent of
construction and demolition debris. By reusing or recycling construction and demolition debris,
energy that would be used in the extraction, processing and transportation of new resources is
reduced. Therefore, the project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of
energy during construction, and the project’s construction energy consumption.
As also shown in Table 5, project annual energy consumption would equate to 113,050 MMBtu of
energy use. Consistent with the City’s Reach Code, the project has proposed all-electric
construction. The project’s required TDM plan (see Section 17: Transportation) will also include
various measures designed to reduce total vehicle trips, which would reduce the consumption of
fuel for vehicles.
Page 42 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Table 5: Construction and Operational Energy Usage
Source Energy Consumption
Amount and Units Converted to MMBtu
Construction Energy Use (Total)
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips
(Gasoline) 155,278 gallons 17,047 MMBtu
Construction Equipment and
Vendor/Hauling Trips (Diesel) 778,092 gallons 106,895 MMBtu
Total Construction Energy Use 123,942 MMBtu
Operational Vehicle Fuel Use (Gross Annual)
Gasoline 449,307 gallons 49,328 MMBtu
Diesel 50,314 gallons 6,912 MMBtu
Operational Built Environment (Gross Annual)
Site Improvements 16.65 GWh 56,810 MMBtu
Total Gross Annual Operational Energy Use 113,050 MMBtu
Note: The energy use reported in this table is gross operational energy use for the proposed project with
no reduction to account for energy use of existing uses.
Source: Energy Calculations included as Attachment C
When subtracting existing operational fuel and built environment energy use from the project totals
above, the total net increase in annual operational energy use would be 99,297 MMBtu (see
Attachment C for additional detail).
As detailed in Section 17: Transportation, with implementation of the required TDM Plan, the
project would result in reduced levels of vehicle travel relative to regional averages and would help
meet regional efforts to reduce vehicle travel and therefore related vehicular consumption of fuel
energy.
As detailed in Section 3: Air Quality and Section 8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project is also
consistent with regional and local climate actions plans. The project incorporates energy and
energy-related efficiency measures meeting all applicable requirements, including water and waste
efficiency. The project would be required to comply with all standards of the City’s Reach Code, Title
24 of the California Code of Regulations, and CALGreen, as applicable, aimed at the incorporation of
energy-conserving design and construction. The project would meet LEED Gold standards and
comply with Architecture 2030’s energy target of an 80% reduction in energy use of comparable
buildings in the same climate zone. Sustainability features to reduce the use of energy may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 43
• Architectural fin optimization for solar shading and daylighting
• High performance windows exceeding energy code thermal performance
• High performance walls, roof, and floors exceeding energy code thermal performance
• Tight building construction targeting 0.40 CFM/SF air infiltration at 75 Pa pressure
• Heat recovery for ventilation air
• Air source heat pump space heating and cooling
• Low flow domestic hot water fixtures
• Daylight harvesting and dimming in common spaces
• High efficiency lighting
• Occupancy/vacancy sensors to control lighting in back of house spaces
Additionally, approximately 15% of the roof area of each building is available to support PV solar
panels, which could be readily integrated to meet tenant and market demand.
While representing a change from the former uses at the site, the project is consistent with the type
of development in the area and allowed under the land use designation and zoning and would be
replacing less efficient buildings.
Therefore, although the project would incrementally increase energy consumption, it would not
result in a significant impact related to energy consumption in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
manner or otherwise conflict with energy plans and the impact in this regard would be less than
significant.
Page 44 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication
42)
☒
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☒
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☒
iv) Landslides? ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☒
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
☒
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
☒
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature? ☒
This section utilizes information from the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the applicants by
Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, dated July 9, 2021, and the Draft Dewatering
Assessment also prepared by Langan and dated September 2, 2022, both of which are available as part
of project materials on file with the City.
a) Seismic Hazards
The major active faults in the area are the San Andreas, San Gregorio, and Hayward Faults. The
closest fault traces are located approximately 3.1 miles from the project site. The project site is not
within an Alquist-Priolo Seismic Hazard Zone, and no known active or potentially active faults
traverse the site. Therefore, the project has no impact related to rupture along a fault.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 45
Similarly, the project site is generally flat and is not located proximate to steep slopes and would
therefore not be subject to landslide hazards (no impact).
However, the San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region, and the site is likely to encounter
strong seismic ground shaking during the lifetime of the project, which can result in seismic-related
ground failure depending on the characteristics of the site and development.
The Geotechnical Investigation determined the potential geological hazards based on site soils to
include the potential for seismic hazards, including liquefaction-induced settlement and seismic
densification. Geotechnical considerations include the localized presence of marsh and Bay Mud
deposits, the need to provide adequate bearing for the building loads, design and installation of
shoring and dewatering systems to support the basement excavation and reduce the potential for
impacting surrounding improvements, design and installation of micropiles, and construction
considerations, as summarized below.
The project site is not within a mapped liquefaction hazard zone, but the project’s Geotechnical
Investigation assessed the potential for liquefaction given the characteristics of the site soils. The
medium dense sand below the groundwater level is not susceptible to liquefaction and would also
be removed from under the proposed building. The medium-dense granular soil present above the
groundwater level presents a low risk for cyclic densification and settlement during a seismic event,
although portions of the site could see settlement of about ¾ inches during a major earthquake.
These would also be removed from the under the building footprint during excavation, but design of
utilities and building entrances and other improvements at the building perimeter, if any, should
consider this potential differential settlement between the outside ground and building.
The Geotechnical Report concluded that the potential seismic hazards can be addressed through
appropriate design and construction, which would occur as part of the design-level geotechnical
recommendations and structural plans as specified in Mitigation Measure Geo-1.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-1: Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by
a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as
prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper foundation engineering
and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations
of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The
structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall
incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code.
This mitigation measure is consistent with, and expands upon, ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 Action
CR-4.4.1, which requires site-specific soils and geologic reports for review and approval by the City
Engineer as part of the standard City process, and incorporation of the recommended actions during
construction. Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation and Structural Design Plans,
as required by Mitigation Measure Geo-1 would reduce the potential impact of seismic hazards
including seismic ground shaking and liquefaction to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
b) Soil Erosion
Construction activities, particularly grading and site preparation, can result in erosion and loss of
topsoil. The project also proposes substantial additional excavation for up to 4 floors of subsurface
parking. While intentional removal of soil from the site would not be considered erosion, the
disturbance of the site could result in the potential for unintended erosion.
Page 46 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
The project would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ (Construction General
Permit), administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Coverage under the
NPDES Permit would require implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
and various site-specific best management practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and loss of topsoil
during site demolition and construction. Compliance with the NPDES permit and BMPs during
demolition and construction such as straw wattles, silt fencing, concrete washouts, and inlet
protection during construction would reduce impacts resulting from loss of topsoil. The project
would be required to comply with South San Francisco Municipal Code (“SSFMC”) Section 15.56.030,
which would require the development of the project site to control filling, grading, and dredging
which may increase flood damage.
Soil erosion after construction would be controlled by implementation of approved landscape and
irrigation plans. With the implementation of a SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan to prevent erosion,
sedimentation, and loss of topsoil during and following construction – which are required under
existing regulations - the soil erosion impacts of the project would be less than significant.
c) Unstable Soil
The soils at the project site and in the surrounding areas contain 4 to 8.5 feet of fill, generally
consisting of medium dense to dense sands and very stiff to hard clay. With the exception of the
southwestern portion of the site, below the fill is approximately 37.5 to 48.5 feet of Colma
formation, which consists of silty and clayey sand and is generally dense to very dense.
In the southwestern portion of the project site, the fill is underlain by weak, compressible marsh
deposits. Under those deposits is approximately 11 feet of Bay Mud, a weak and compressible
marine clay. Characteristics of site soils would largely be addressed through the proposed
excavation, which would remove unstable soils in the building basement footprint.
The Geotechnical Investigation determined the project site to be at low risk for lateral spreading due
to its flat nature, the absence of any nearby steep slopes and its low potential for liquefaction.
However, the project would require substantial excavation and related dewatering activities, which
could result in on- and off-site subsidence or collapse if not handled appropriately. To minimize the
need for dewatering, the project is proposing shoring using deep soil mixing (DSM) walls with
grouted tiebacks and/or internal bracing for additional lateral support for temporary excavation
support. Because DSM walls are continuous, they act to temporarily cut off groundwater infiltration
through the sides of the excavation, resulting in the need for less dewatering. Langan performed a
series of groundwater drawdown simulations to address potential conditions that could be
encountered during excavation and in all cases, the potential for settlement would be 1.75 inches or
less at 25 feet from the excavation and declining farther from the site.
The Langan report concludes that the potential geological hazards related to unstable soil, including
off-site subsidence or collapse due to excavation and dewatering, can be addressed through
appropriate design and construction, which would occur as part of the design-level geotechnical
recommendations and structural plans as specified in Mitigation Measure Geo-1.
Mitigation Measure Geo-1 requiring compliance with geotechnical investigation construction
methodologies would also reduce the potential impact related to unstable soil
or collapse.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 47
Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation and Structural Design Plans, as required
by Mitigation Measure Geo-1 would reduce the potential impact of unstable soil hazards including
off-site subsidence or collapse due to excavation and dewatering to a level of less than significant
with mitigation.
d) Expansive Soil
The Geotechnical Investigation did not identify the potential for expansive soils at the site.
Therefore, the project has no impact related to expansive soils.
e) Septic Tanks
The project would not include the use of septic tanks and associated disposal facilities. Therefore,
the project would have no impact in this regard.
f) Unique Geologic Feature or Paleontological Resource
The project site is a generally flat infill site and does not contain unique geologic features.
The area east of Highway 101 is underlain by deposits of Bay mud, which have some sensitivity for
paleontological vertebrates, though there are no known paleontological resources in the vicinity of
the project site.15, 16
The project site falls within a highly urbanized area and the site is underlain by about 4 to 8.5 feet of
fill; however, the excavation for the parking garage would dig to a depth of up to about 50 feet,
which is likely to encounter native soils that have not been previously disturbed. Therefore, the
project has a potential to encounter paleontological resources, which would be addressed through
the following measures.
Mitigation Measures Cul-1 and Cul-2 would reduce the potential impact related to unknown
paleontological resources.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Cul-1 and Cul-2 would reduce the impacts associated with
possible disturbance of previously-unidentified paleontological resources to less than significant
with mitigation.
15 South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
16 University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Online Database. 2019. UCMP specimen search portal,
http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed August 2022).
Page 48 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment? ☒
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ☒
This section utilizes information from the Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared for this
analysis by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. and dated February 17, 2023, included in full as Attachment A.
a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
BAAQMD determined that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and global climate change represent
cumulative impacts. Construction and operation of the proposed project would be additional
sources of GHG emissions, primarily through consumption of fuel for transportation and energy
usage on an ongoing basis.
State Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) required California state and local governments to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. State Senate Bill 32 was subsequently adopted to require that
there be a further reduction in GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030. The additional
40% reduction by 2030 identified in SB 32 equates to a 2030 efficiency standard of 2.8 metric tons
CO2e per year per service population.
In April 2022, BAAQMD issued new GHG emissions thresholds, revising the quantified threshold to a
checklist of compliance, requiring consistency with either criterion A or B as follows:
A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:
1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both
residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage as
determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section
15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
2. Transportation
a. Achieve compliance with electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted
version of CALGreen Tier 2.
b. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the
regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change
Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT
target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 49
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita
ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee
iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).
Regarding criterion A, the proposed buildings would be constructed in conformance with CALGreen
and the Title 24 Building Code, which requires high-efficiency water fixtures, water-efficient
irrigation systems, and compliance with current energy efficacy standards and would meet
BAAQMD’s checklist as follows:
A.1.a. Avoid construction of new natural gas connections for the non-residential building,
Conforms – project includes a stub natural gas connection but is designed to be operated with
100% electricity.
A.1.b. Avoid wasteful or inefficient use of electricity,
Conforms – would meet CALGreen Building Standards Code requirements that are considered to
be energy efficient.
A.2.a. Include electric vehicle charging infrastructure that meets current Building Code CALGreen
Tier 2 compliance, and
Conforms – 81 EV parking spaces are proposed to be constructed up front (6% of total) with an
additional 268 spaces EV-ready for future operation (20% of total). This is consistent with the
requirements under Section 20.330.008 of the City’s Municipal Code and the CalGreen Tier 2
requirements at the time of project application.
A.2.b. Reduce VMT per service population by 15 percent over regional average.
Conforms – The proposed TDM plan would reduce vehicle trips more than 15 percent over
regional average (see Section 17: Transportation).
As indicated above, all relevant criteria would be met and the project would therefore be
considered to have a less than significant impact with respect to Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Note that it is not necessary to consider criterion B since the project meets criterion A. However, the
following information is provided for informational purposes.
Along with the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in October
2022 with the goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, reduce emissions 40% by 2030, and 80%
by 2040.
There is not currently a checklist for development projects, but the following strategies and actions
are indirectly applicable to this proposed project through action and enforcement by the City:
BNC 1.1 Improve the energy efficiency of new construction. Provide a combination of financial
and development process incentives (e.g. Expedited permitting, FAR increase, etc.) to
encourage new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standard.
Page 50 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Supports – The project would meet LEED Gold standards and the Architecture 2030 Energy
target of an 80% reduction in energy use of comparable buildings in the same climate zone.
BNC 2.1 All-Electric Reach Code for Nonresidential New Construction. Implement residential all-
electric reach code and adopt all-electric reach code for nonresidential new construction.
Supports – The project is designed to operate as all-electric.
BE 1.3 Energy Efficiency Programs. Update zoning and building codes to require alterations or
additions at least 50% the size of the original building to comply with minimum CALGreen
requirements.
Supports – The project would meet minimum applicable CALGreen requirements. The project
would also meet LEED Gold requirements.
TL 2.2 TDM Program. Implement, monitor, and enforce compliance with the City’s TDM Ordinance.
Supports – The project would incorporate a TDM plan that follows the City’s TDM Ordinance.
TL 2.6 Complete Streets Policy. Ensure that all roadway and development projects are designed
and evaluated to meet the needs of all street users, and that development projects
contribute to multimodal improvements in proportion to their potential impacts on vehicle
miles traveled. Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the Active
South City Plan.
Assumed Support – Pedestrian and bicycle circulation on Dubuque Avenue are currently under
study. The project applicant would coordinate with the City to incorporate any applicable bicycle
or pedestrian improvements necessary to meet this policy when finalized.
WW 2.1 Indoor Water Efficiency Standards. Require high-efficiency fixtures in all new
construction and major renovations, comparable to CalGreen Tier 1 or 2 standards.
Supports – The project would be required to meet the CALGreen and the Title 24 Building Code,
which requires high-efficiency water fixtures and water-efficient irrigation systems.
To further support conclusions related to the qualitative criteria above, GHG emissions were
modeled quantitatively using CalEEMod, as discussed in Section 3: Air Quality, and are included here
as an informational item. To meet 2020 reduction targets, BAAQMD had recommended threshold of
significance for operational GHGs of 1,100 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year or,
if the project was too large to meet that threshold, an efficiency threshold of 4.6 metric tons CO2e
per service population (residents and employees) per year. Because this is a relatively large
office/R&D project, the efficiency threshold would be most applicable to this analysis. While
BAAQMD did not update recommendations to address 2030 reduction targets, industry standard is
to assume an additional 40% reduction per State directives, which equates to a standard of 2.8
metric tons CO2e per year per service population. A summary of the results is included in Table 6.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 51
Table 6: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Description
GHG
in metric tons CO2e per year 1
Project Emissions, Operational 5,510
Project Emissions, Construction
(averaged over 40 years) 2 168
Project Emissions, Total 5,678
Project Service Population 3 2,690
Project Emissions, Total
(per Service Population) 4 2.11
Project Service Population
Extrapolated Significance Threshold 2.8 in 2030
Exceeds Threshold? No
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2023, Table 8 in Attachment A.
1 CO2e is carbon dioxide equivalent units, the standard measure of total greenhouse gasses.
2 Standard practice is to divide the construction emissions by 40 years (an average building life) and add that to the
operational emissions for comparison to thresholds.
3 Service Population was calculated at approximately 300 square feet per employee for office/R&D.
4 The emissions in this table are gross emissions for the proposed project with no reduction to account for existing uses
and emissions.
As shown in Table 6 above, quantified GHG emissions would be below the relevant efficiency
threshold and therefore consistent with the less than significant impact conclusion.
b) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans
With respect to GHG emissions, the Clean Air Plan includes a goal to reduce Bay Area GHG emissions
40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This is consistent
with the target reductions intended to be met by the BAAQMD thresholds and the City’s CAP. As
demonstrated under criterion a) above, the project would be consistent with BAAQMD thresholds
and the City’s CAP and would therefore be consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal of the
Clean Air Plan.
Additionally, emissions associated with the development of the proposed project were analyzed per
the BAAQMD May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, as updated. BAAQMD’s thresholds and
methodologies take into account implementation of state-wide regulations and plans, such as the
AB 32 Scoping Plan, as updated, and adopted state regulations such as Pavley and the low carbon
fuel standard. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant with respect to consistency with
GHG reduction plans.
Page 52 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ☒
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment?
☒
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☒
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? ☒
This section utilizes information from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the
applicants by Ramboll US Consulting, Inc., dated January 2021, and the draft Soil and Groundwater
Management Plan prepared by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., dated July 15,
2021, which are available as part of project materials on file with the City.
a) Routine Use of Hazardous Materials
It is likely that equipment used at the site during construction activities could utilize substances
considered by regulatory bodies as hazardous, such as diesel fuel and gasoline. However, all
construction activities would be required to conform with Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, US Department of Transportation, State of California, and local laws, ordinances and
procedures.
While specific tenants have not yet been identified, any commercial uses would involve household
hazardous waste such as cleaners. Biotech and pharmaceutical research laboratories typically use
limited quantities of materials considered to be biological hazards and/or chemical hazards. The San
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 53
Mateo County Environmental Health Division enforces regulations pertaining to safe handling and
proper storage of hazardous materials to prevent or reduce the potential for injury to human health
and the environment. Occupational safety standards exist in federal and state laws to minimize
worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. The California
Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration is responsible for developing and
enforcing workplace safety standards and ensuring worker safety in the handling and use of
hazardous materials.
With compliance with applicable regulations, project construction and operations are not
anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (less than significant).
b, d) Hazardous Materials Site and Accidental Release
The project site is not identified as a listed hazardous materials site pursuant to Section 65962.5 of
the Government Code.17 The site was first developed in 1925 for use by Fontana Food Products Co.
as a macaroni factory. By 1950 until 1982, the site was occupied by Dubuque Packing Co., a meat
packing facility. A subsurface investigation conducted in 2015 sampled soil and groundwater from
areas adjacent to a former 15,000-gallon fuel oil underground storage tank (UST). There was one
detection of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) from a depth of 5 feet below ground surface in the
area of the former UST above applicable residential environmental screening levels (ESLs), however,
the sample collected from the area near the base of the tank did not exceed ESLs indicating that the
shallower contamination was not a result of a leaking UST. There were low-level detections of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals in the soil that were either below ESLs or typical of
background concentrations in the Bay Area. The groundwater samples collected from each boring
did not detect TPH in any of the samples. The report concluded that there was no widespread
contamination at the site and that no further investigation was needed at the time. The site was
redeveloped in 1986 into a commercial multi-tenant facility, and likely regraded at that time.
A comprehensive soil and groundwater investigation was completed in 2021 by Langan. More than
100 soil samples were obtained from 20 borings across the site with samples occurring at
approximately 5-foot intervals to approximately 60 feet below ground surface. No Class I Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or non-RCRA hazardous material was detected in the site
soils. Low detections of VOCs, SVOCs, TPH, and metals were found in select borings that exceeded
Tier 1 ESLs, primarily in the upper 5 feet. Metals detections were sporadic throughout the site and
slightly above either Tier 1 ESLs or typical background metal concentrations for the Bay Area. Based
on the extensive sampling done across the site and soluble testing completed, the elevated metal
concentrations are not anticipated to present a restriction when disposing of the soil. All remaining
material will likely be excavated and disposed of as unrestricted waste depending on the disposal
facility’s acceptance criteria or reused on site. Groundwater was sampled from five borings as a part
of this investigation. Based on the recorded groundwater elevations at the site and proposed
excavation, dewatering activities will be needed during excavation activities, and, depending on the
method of discharge pre-treatment may be required.
17 State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker Database, website accessed 8/6/2022
at http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/; Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor Database, website accessed
8/6/2022 at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
Page 54 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
In all, the site history, supported by several in-depth environmental investigations of the site
support the finding that minimal impacts due to hazardous materials at the site exist but the
existence of residual soil and groundwater impacts are sufficient to warrant health and safety
measures and a soil management plan during excavation and construction activities, which are
tailored to control fugitive dust that may contain residual hazardous materials and groundwater
treatment as needed to neutralize any residual contaminants in dewatering groundwater before
discharge. Mitigation Measure Haz-1 is tailored to address these specific risks.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-1: Implement Soil Management and Health and Safety Plans. The applicant’s
construction contractor shall implement soil management and health and safety
plans to facilitate compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and
regulations, applicable to earthwork activities at the site as a result of the
reported petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compound
concentrations in the soil. These plans must be filed with the City before
construction permits are granted and are anticipated to include the following
components:
1. Soil Management Plan. Recent analytical results indicate that some site soils
contain slightly elevated concentrations of SVOCs, VOCs, TPH, and certain
metals. The soil management objectives for the site are to minimize
exposure of potentially hazardous constituents in soil to construction
workers, nearby residents and pedestrians, and future users of the site. A
site-specific soil management plan will be developed based on recent
comprehensive subsurface investigations covering the site soils to depths
exceeding planned excavations and the underlying groundwater. The soil
management plan is intended to facilitate compliance with relevant federal,
state, and local laws and regulations, applicable to earthwork activities at
the site as a result of the identified contamination profiles. Some of the
excavated material in the upper 5 feet may need to be disposed off-site at a
Class II non-hazardous regulated landfill and/or as unrestrictive waste based
on disposal facility’s acceptance criteria. The contractor will establish
appropriate off-site disposal locations and direct truck loading scheduling
and tracking and recording of all shipments per applicable regulations
and/or stockpile locations on the site to properly segregate, cover, moisture
control, and profile the excavated material. Further testing may instead
determine that no special soil handling is required. Unless from a
documented clean source such as a quarry, soil imported onto the site will
be tested in accordance with the “Clean Imported Fill Material” information
advisory developed by the California DTSC in October 2001.
2. Health and Safety Plan. The potential health risk to on-site construction
workers and the public will be minimized by developing and implementing a
comprehensive Health and Safety Plan (HASP). The contractor will be
responsible for developing and implementing the HASP. The HASP plan will
describe the health and safety training requirements, specific personal
hygiene, and monitoring equipment that will be used during construction to
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 55
protect and verify the health and safety of the construction workers and the
general public from exposure to constituents in the soil, which is anticipated
to include the following:
• the site will be fenced;
• exposed soil at the construction site will be watered at least twice daily
to prevent visible dust from migrating off-site;
• stockpiles will be covered;
• water will be misted or sprayed during loading of material onto trucks
for off haul;
• trucks transporting contaminated material will be covered with a
tarpaulin or other cover;
• the wheels of the trucks exiting the site will be cleaned prior to entering
public streets;
• public streets will be swept daily if material is visible, excavation and
loading activities will be suspended if winds exceed 15 miles per hour;
and the fence will be posted with requirements of the safe drinking
water and toxic enforcement act (Proposition 65).
3. Health and Safety Officer. A site health and safety officer identified in the
Health and Safety Plan will be on site at all times during excavation activities
to ensure that all health and safety measures are maintained. The health
and safety officer will have authority to direct and stop (if necessary) all
construction activities in order to ensure compliance with the health and
safety plan.
4. Dust Control. During all excavation activities, dust control measures will be
implemented to reduce potential exposure. These measures may include
moisture conditioning the soil and covering exposed soil and stockpiles with
weighted down plastic sheeting to prevent exposure of the soil. Dust control
measures at a minimum will include:
• Covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting.
• Watering uncovered ground surface at the site; use of water will be
limited to prevent runoff.
• Misting or spraying of soil during excavation and loading.
• Emplacement of gravel and/or rubble plates on site access roads as
feasible.
• Trucks hauling soil from the site will be covered.
• Visible dust will be monitored during excavation and subsurface
demolition.
• The soil drop height from an excavator’s bucket onto soil piles or into
transport trucks will be minimized.
• Windbreaks will be deployed as necessary.
• If necessary, the area of excavation may be limited to reduce dust
generation.
• Site vehicle speed limits.
Page 56 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
• Street sweeping.
• Termination of excavation if winds exceed 25 mph.
• Addition of soil stabilizers and other responses as needed.
5. Odor Control. If strong odors are noted during excavation activities, odor
suppression measures will be implemented by the General Contractor to
minimize odor during excavation activities.
6. Storm Water Pollution Controls. Storm water pollution controls will be
implemented to minimize storm water runoff and sediment transport from
the site. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will identify Best
Management Practices for activities as specified by the California Storm
Water Best Management Practices Handbook (Stormwater Quality Task
Force, 1993) and/or the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment
Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). The SWPPP will include protocols (i.e.,
earth dikes and drainage swales) to control storm water contact with, or
runoff from potentially impacted soil during wet weather conditions.
7. Groundwater Management. Groundwater at the site has been encountered
at depths of nine feet to fifteen feet below ground surface. Construction
dewatering is anticipated based on development plans. Any construction
dewatering must adhere to a discharge permit obtained from the South San
Francisco Department of Public Works Water Quality Control Division,
Environmental Compliance Program or the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Based on the analytical results, the groundwater may need to be
treated prior to discharge. Any proposed groundwater treatment prior to
discharge will require analytical testing and approval from the appropriate
regulatory agency prior to discharging.
8. Contingency Plans for Unknown/Unexpected Conditions. The following tasks
shall be implemented during excavation activities if unknown historical
subsurface features and/or unanticipated hazardous materials are
encountered. Such materials may include unaccounted for underground
storage tanks (UST) and associated product lines, sumps, and/or vaults,
former monitoring wells, and/or soil with significant petroleum hydrocarbon
odors and/or stains.
• Stop work in the area where the suspect material is encountered and
cover with plastic sheets.
• Notify the General Contractor’s site safety officer and site
superintendent.
• Review the existing health and safety plan for revisions, if necessary,
and have appropriately trained personnel on-site to work with the
affected materials, once directed by the General Contractor.
9. Soil and Groundwater Management Completion Report. A Soil and
Groundwater Management Completion Report (SGMCR) will be prepared
that summarizes the soil and groundwater management activities and any
subsequent investigative and removal activities that were completed during
redevelopment. The SGMCR will present a chronology of the construction
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 57
events, a summary of analytical data, a copy of all manifests from the site,
and a description of all soil and groundwater management activities at the
site. The report will also contain laboratory analytical results and figures, as
appropriate, to provide detail regarding the amount and type of
contamination encountered (if any) during various activities. The report will
also summarize any residual contaminants that were left on the site after
completion of redevelopment activities and document that soil handling
procedures were implemented in accordance with this mitigation measure.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1 would reduce the impacts associated with upset or
accidental release related to a hazardous materials site to a level of less than significant with
mitigation.
Routine use of hazardous materials as a part of construction activities and operations are discussed
under this Section 9(a) above.
c) Hazardous Materials Near Schools
No school is located within one-quarter mile of the project site. No hazardous materials with the
potential for release during operation would be handled on or emitted from the site. Construction
activities are discussed above. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to
hazardous materials near schools.
e) Airport Hazards
The closest airport is the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), approximately 2 miles from the
project site. The project site is within the boundary of the SFO Airport Land Use Consistency Plan
(ALUCP) and as such, the compatibility criteria contained within the ALUCP are applicable to
development at the project site. Most of the East of 101 Area, including the project site, is located
outside of the ALUCP-designated Safety Compatibility zone that would have restricted types of uses,
so the main applicable restrictions are height limitations. Development on the project site is limited
to maximum heights of 261 feet above mean sea level but could be modified through consultation
with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).18 Factoring in the height of the site, the applicant
estimates that the proposed project would reach heights of about 218 feet above mean sea level
plus additional rooftop elements, all of which would be below the lowest FAA height limit at the site
of 261 feet. The project is consistent with airport-related building safety policies identified in the
ALUCP. Notification and consultation with the FAA would be required under CFR part 77.9 and
would ensure that the project is compatible with the SFO ALUCP. Therefore, this impact would be
less than significant.
f) Emergency Response Plan
The project would not include any changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency
access to the site or surrounding area. The proposed project would be designed to comply with the
18 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, including Exhibit IV-14. Available at:
http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf
Page 58 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
California Fire Code and the City Fire Marshal’s code requirements that require on site access for
emergency vehicles, a standard condition for any new project approval.
No substantial obstruction in public rights-of-way has been proposed with the project’s construction
activities. However, any construction activities can result in temporary intermittent roadway
obstructions, but these would be handled through standard procedures with the City to ensure
adequate clearance is maintained.
Therefore, with compliance with applicable regulations and standard procedures, the impact with
respect to impairment or interference with an Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan would be
less than significant.
g) Wildland Fire
The project site is in a highly developed industrial/commercial area, and no wildlands are intermixed
within this urban area. The closest wildlands area is San Bruno Mountain County Park located over
3,000 feet away, which is considered to have moderate to high (not very high) fire hazard. The
proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks of any nature, would not substantially impair
an adopted emergency evacuation plan or emergency response plan, and is not located in or near a
Local or State Responsibility area with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation.19, 20 The
project is not susceptible to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and there
would be no impact in this regard.
19 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Available:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-
zones-maps/.
20 Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area, November 24, 2008, available at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6800/fhszl_map41.pdf.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 59
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? ☒
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☒
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
☒
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation? ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan? ☒
This section utilizes information from the Draft Dewatering Assessment prepared by Langan and dated
September 2, 2022, which is available as part of project materials on file with the City.
a) Water Quality and Discharge
Construction Period
Construction activities have the potential to impact water quality through erosion and through
debris and oil/grease carried in runoff which could result in pollutants and siltation entering
stormwater runoff and downstream receiving waters if not properly managed. The project would be
required to obtain coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (General
Construction Permit) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. Coverage under this
permit requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and
approval by the City.21 At a minimum, the SWPPP would include a description of construction
21 SWRCB, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ (Construction General Permit)
Page 60 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
materials, practices, and equipment storage and maintenance; a list of pollutants likely to contact
stormwater; a list of provisions to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to stormwater; best
management practices (BMPs); and an inspection and monitoring program. Furthermore, the
County of San Mateo’s Water Pollution Prevention Program would require the project site to
implement BMPs during project construction to reduce pollution carried by stormwater such as
keeping sediment on site using perimeter barriers and storm drain inlet protection and proper
management of construction materials, chemicals, and wastes on site. Additional BMPs required by
South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 14.04.180 would also be implemented during project
construction. Per standard City procedures, compliance with SWPPP requirements and BMPs would
be verified during the construction permitting process.
As discussed in more detail in the Section 7: Geology and Soils, project construction activities would
require substantial excavation and related dewatering activities, which would need to then be
discharged. To minimize the need for dewatering, the project is proposing shoring using continuous
DSM walls for temporary excavation support, which act to temporarily cut off groundwater
infiltration through the sides of the excavation, resulting in the need for less dewatering. As
discussed in more detail in Section 9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, contaminants were
detected in the groundwater above commercial screening levels for groundwater not used as a
drinking water resource or for aquatic habitat. Per the analytic results of the groundwater sampling,
it is anticipated the groundwater from site dewatering will need to be analyzed and possibly treated
to be able to be discharged into the sanitary sewer system. Any construction dewatering must
adhere to a discharge permit obtained from the South San Francisco Department of Public Works
Water Quality Control Division, Environmental Compliance Program or the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. The groundwater would be pumped into appropriate containers and samples
obtained for chemical analyses and appropriate treatment prior to disposal, if needed.
Mitigation Measures Geo-1 and Haz-1 would require construction techniques to minimize
necessary dewatering and appropriate handling of dewatering and would also
reduce the potential impact related to water quality and discharge.
Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation and Structural Design Plans, as required
by Mitigation Measure Geo-1 and implementation of groundwater management as required by
Mitigation Measure Haz-1 would reduce the potential impact related to water quality and discharge
to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
Operational Period
Project operations have the potential to result in sources of stormwater pollutants such as oil,
grease, and debris to stormwater drainage flowing over roadways and other impermeable surfaces
and entering the city’s stormwater system, served by the City of South San Francisco’s Public Works
Department, Maintenance Division. The project site drains to an existing storm drain system that
outfalls to a tidally influenced channel that is connected to the San Francisco Bay. With the
proposed improvements, runoff from the rooftop and parking areas would be retained and treated
via bio-retention basins and flow-through planters.
Federal Clean Water Act regulations require municipalities to obtain National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits which outline programs and activities to control surface
stormwater pollution. Municipalities, such as the City of South San Francisco, must eliminate or
reduce “non-point” pollution, consisting of all types of substances generated as a result of
urbanization (e.g. pesticides, fertilizers, automobile fluids, sewage, litter, etc.), to the “maximum
extent practicable” (as required by Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(3)(iii)). Clean Water Act Section
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 61
402(p) and USEPA regulations (40 CFR 122.26) specify a municipal program of “best management
practices” to control stormwater pollutants. Best Management Practices (BMP) refers to any kind of
procedure or device designed to minimize the quantity of pollutants that enter the storm drain
system. To comply with these regulations, each incorporated city and town in San Mateo County
joined with the County of San Mateo to form the San Mateo County Water Pollution Prevention
Program (SMCWPPP) in applying for a regional NPDES permit, which includes Provision C.3. 22 The
C.3 requirements are intended to protect water quality by minimizing pollutants in runoff, and to
prevent downstream erosion by: designing the project site to minimize imperviousness, detain
runoff, and infiltrate runoff where feasible; treating runoff prior to discharge from the site; ensuring
runoff does not exceed pre-project peaks and durations; and maintaining treatment facilities.
Project applicants must prepare and implement a Stormwater Control Plan containing treatment
and source control measures that meet the “maximum extent practicable” standard as specified in
the NPDES permit and the SMCWPPP C.3 Guidebook. Project applicants must also prepare a
Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan and execute agreements to ensure the
stormwater treatment and flow-control facilities are maintained in perpetuity.
Project compliance with applicable State General Permit requirements, City ordinances, and County
of San Mateo’s guidelines would not result in significant impacts on water quality and would not
result in a violation of water quality standards. Impacts would be less than significant with respect
to water quality and discharge.
b) Groundwater Recharge and Supplies
The project is located in a designated urban area within the Westside groundwater basin.23
The California Water Service (Cal Water) supplies water to the City of South San Francisco and would
serve the project site. Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) anticipates future
growth in the region, although the current project is not explicitly included. The majority of the
water supply to the Cal Water South San Francisco District (i.e., approximately 80 percent from
2005-2019) is treated water purchased from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water
System (RWS), which is operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and
originates largely (85%) from the Hetch Hetchy watershed (surface water). Groundwater makes up
approximately 20 percent of the water supply for the South San Francisco District, which comes
from the “Westside Basin”, which underlies the South San Francisco District. The Basin is currently
categorized by the California Department of Water Resources as a very low priority basin and as
such, the Basin is not subject to the requirements of the California Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act though the Basin has been actively managed for years, including the establishment
of pumping limitations.24 As discussed in more detail in Section 19: Utilities and Service Systems, a
Water Supply Assessment was done for the project and is included in the project materials on file
with the City.
22 Regional Water Board, 2007, Order No. R2-2007-0027, NPDES Permit No. CAS0029921.
23 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control
Plan (Basin Plan), November 2019.
24 California Water Service (Cal Water), adopted June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Francisco District.,
available at: https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf.
Page 62 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
The site is currently developed and therefore consists primarily of impervious surfaces, with
landscaping along the frontage and in the parking lot areas. The project would result in a decrease
of impervious surfaces with the addition of areas of permeable paving and construction of a new
above and below ground drainage system that includes catch-basins, storm drainpipe, bio-retention
areas, and flow-through planters to capture, treat, and discharge runoff from the entire site. The
proposed drainage system would maintain the existing flow discharge pattern.
As discussed in more detail in the Section 7: Geology and Soils, project construction activities would
require substantial excavation and up to 18 months of related dewatering activities. Because
groundwater at the site is not used for drinking water or for aquatic habitat and draw-down from
dewatering activities would be temporary, this would not be considered a significant impact on
groundwater supplies.
As discussed under this Section 10(a) above, the project would comply with stormwater drainage
requirements, including bio-retention/treatment areas to address both quality and volumes of
runoff and is consistent with expected use of the site in basin planning. The project would not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,
and would have a less than significant impact related to groundwater.
Because groundwater in the vicinity of the project site is not used as a drinking water source and is
derived from the Bay, the potential to deplete groundwater supplies is considered a less than
significant impact and no mitigation is required.
c) Drainage Pattern Alteration
The site is currently developed and therefore consists almost entirely of impervious surfaces across
the 5.89-acre site. The project would result in approximately 4.63 acres of impervious surface (79%
of the site).
There are existing storm drainpipes on the project site, located on the long sides of the existing
buildings. The project is proposing to remove the existing storm drainpipes and replace them with
new drainpipes along all four sides of the project site. In compliance with City requirements, the
project would implement low-impact development stormwater management best practices to
minimize runoff and encourage stormwater infiltration, including using concrete-lined flow-through
planters to manage stormwater on the project site. An on-site storm drain detention system would
be provided to limit flows into the public storm drain system to pre-project conditions, in
accordance with City requirements.
As discussed under this Section 10(a) above, through compliance with applicable regulations, runoff
from site would be the same or reduced from that existing and would not cause erosion, siltation,
pollution, or flooding and as discussed above, changes to on-site conditions would meet applicable
requirements and would not exceed capacity of the stormwater drainage system or result in on- or
off-site flooding. Project impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns would be less than
significant.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 63
d) Inundation
The project site is approximately 1 to 1.5 miles from the San Francisco Bay and approximately 5
miles from the Pacific Ocean, and according to state hazard mapping is not located in a tsunami
hazard area.25
The nearest body of water that could experience seiche (water level oscillations in an enclosed or
partially enclosed body of water) is the San Francisco Bay located approximately 1 mile northeast
and 1.5 miles east of the project site. A seiche would not experience run up higher than a tsunami
and as discussed above, the site is not located in a tsunami hazard area and is therefore not in an
area at risk for seiche inundation either. No other large bodies of water with the potential to
inundate the project site by a seiche are located near the site.
The project is not located within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone and is
therefore not at substantial risk of flooding from 100-year or more common storms.26
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the risk of release of pollutants due to
inundation by a tsunami, seiche, or flooding and the project impact in this regard would be less than
significant.
e) Implementation of Plans
As discussed under this Section 10(a) above, the project would comply with applicable requirements
under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit, County of San Mateo’s Water Pollution
Prevention Program, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which are intended
to implement relevant laws and plans related to water quality.
As discussed under this Section 10(b) above, the local groundwater basin is not required to comply
with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The project would not otherwise conflict with
Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan or groundwater management and the project impact
with respect to implementation of plans would be less than significant.
25 California Geological Survey, 2021, Tsunami Hazard Area Map, San Mateo County, available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.
26 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), effective 4/5/2019, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Number
06081C0042F, available at https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps.
Page 64 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
☒
a) Physical Division of a Community
The project site is in an urbanized area surrounded by developed parcels and infrastructure. The site
is a development parcel and does not act as a connection point for other parcels. The project would
not involve any physical changes that would have the potential to divide an established community
and there would therefore be no impact in this regard.
b) Conflict with Land Use Plan
An environmental impact could occur when a project conflicts with a policy or regulation intended
to avoid or reduce an environmental impact. The following discussion does not replace or preclude a
consistency assessment for project approval considerations, which take into account more than
potential impacts to the environment.
The proposed project conforms to the updated height, density and use controls in the ShapeSSF
General Plan 2040 for the East of 101 Transit Core designation. The site is zoned for East of 101
Transit Core use, under which R&D and office uses are permitted, and the project otherwise
conforms with the height and density controls of the zoning code.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with regard to land use plan
conflicts.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 65
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
☒
a, b) Mineral Resources
The site contains no known mineral resources and has not been delineated as a locally important
mineral recovery site on any land use plan.27 The project would have no impact related to mineral
resources.
27 U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Resources Data System: U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Accessed August 2022, at:
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/
Page 66 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
13. NOISE
Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
☒
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? ☒
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
☒
a, b) Excessive Noise or Vibration
Noise and vibrations from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of
construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance
between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Construction noise impacts
primarily occur when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (early
morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise
sensitive land uses, or when construction involves particularly noisy techniques, such as driven piles.
The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi-family residences
approximately 400 feet to the west on the other side of U.S. 101.
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code, Section 8.32.050)
restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits
noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line.
The project is not anticipated to require pile driving and the project’s construction activities would
comply with the Noise Ordinance. With compliance with Noise Ordinance requirements, temporary
construction-period noise and vibration impacts are considered less than significant.
Operation of an office/R&D use would not be considered a noise-sensitive receptor and does not
produce substantial levels of off-site vibration or noise. Rooftop equipment would be required to
comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, would be shielded as appropriate, and in any case, would
not have the potential to generate noise levels above those of the U.S. 101 at receptors across the
highway from the project site. Traffic-related noise impacts generally have the potential to occur
with at least a doubling of traffic volumes on roadways adjacent to areas with noise sensitive uses
that are already at or above acceptable noise conditions. The project is located proximate to U.S.
101 and would not require substantial trips to pass by noise sensitive uses other than on high-
volume roadways such as U.S. 101, which carries substantially more than the volume of project
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 67
traffic under existing conditions and would therefore not experience a doubling in volume with the
addition of project traffic. Operationally, the project itself would not be considered a source of
substantial noise or vibration. Therefore, operation of the project would be less than significant.
c) Airport Noise
The closest airport to the project site is the San Francisco International Airport, approximately 2
miles to the south. The project site is within the boundary of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
(ALUCP), but is not within the area substantially impacted by airplane flyover noise (i.e., the
Community Noise Equivalent Level 70 Noise Contours).28 Impacts related to excessive aircraft noise
exposure would be less than significant.
28 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. Available at: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf
Page 68 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☒
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☒
a) Substantial Population Growth
While neither housing nor population are directly created as a result of this project, employment
opportunities can indirectly increase population and the demand for housing.
The applicants project an employment density of 300 gross square footage per employee. Based on
this, the project is estimated to introduce up to approximately 3,000 new jobs to the City of South
San Francisco. Table 2-6 of the EIR for the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 projects a growth of 17,978
jobs in the East of 101 Transit Core.29 The General Plan 2040 projects a growth of 59% from the
population of 2018, with approximately 49,800 additional residents by 2040.30 The EIR for the
General Plan 2040 determined that this population growth would have a less that significant impact.
Plan Bay Area 2050 is the current regional long-range plan charting the course for the future of the
nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2050 focuses on four key issues — the economy,
the environment, housing, and transportation. Plan Bay Area 2050 estimates a total of 5,408,000
total jobs to the Bay Area by 2050 (an addition of 1,403,000 jobs between 2015 and 2050).31 The
project’s addition of up to 3,000 employees would increase jobs in the City and region
incrementally. Compared to the total jobs projection for the entire Bay Area, the addition of 3,000
jobs would not be substantial. The location of an employment center close to regional transit
(Caltrain) would be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050 goals to locate more jobs near transit.
Therefore, the project impact with respect to indirect population growth would be less than
significant.
b) Displacement of Housing or People
There is currently no housing or people at the site that would be displaced by the project. The
project would have no impact related to displacement of housing or people.
29 FirstCarbon Solutions, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and
Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. June 24, 2022.
30 City of South San Francisco, ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. February 2022.
31 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint
Growth Pattern, January 2021. Available at: https://www.planbayarea.org/digital-library/plan-bay-area-2050-final-
blueprint-growth-pattern
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 69
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
following public services? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Fire protection ☒
b) Police protection ☒
c) Schools ☒
d) Parks ☒
e) Other public facilities ☒
a-e) Public Services
The proposed project is located on a developed site within the City of South San Francisco that is
within the public services area, which includes South San Francisco Fire Department Station 62
located 1.2 miles away from the project site, and the South San Francisco Fire Department located
1.3 miles away. The project would not directly add population, and an office/R&D use would not be
anticipated to substantially increase utilization of public services, such that new or physically altered
facilities would be required. The minimal increases in demand for services expected with the worker
population and potential indirect population growth (see Section 14: Population and Housing),
would be offset through payment of development fees and annual taxes, a portion of which go
toward ongoing provision of and improvements to public services. Therefore, the impact to public
services would be less than significant.
Page 70 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
16. RECREATION
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated.
☒
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
☒
a, b) Recreation
The project proposes onsite open space in the form of landscaped areas and outdoor seating areas.
The construction of onsite amenities has been included in the analysis in this document and would
not result in significant impacts to the environment. The project would not otherwise construct or
cause to be constructed parks or recreational facilities.
All commercial development is required to pay development impact fees to the City, which helps
fund City parks and recreation facilities and programs. The use of public recreational facilities would
not be anticipated to increase substantially due to project employees such that physical
deterioration would occur, or construction or expansion would be necessary. Therefore, the impact
related to recreation would be less than significant.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 71
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities? ☒
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☒
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? ☒
d) Result in inadequate emergency services? ☒
This section utilizes information from the Transportation Analysis prepared for this analysis by Hexagon
Transportation Consultants, Inc., included in full as Attachment D.
a) Circulation System Plans and Facilities
The Transportation Analysis assessed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access and circulation and
consistency with applicable regulations.
Pedestrians: Sidewalks and crosswalks are provided on most streets in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project. Sidewalks exist along the east side of Dubuque Avenue, on Grand Avenue and
Airport Boulevard, with signalized intersections at Dubuque Avenue/Oyster Point and Dubuque
Avenue/Grand Avenue. As part of the South San Francisco Caltrain Reconstruction Project that is
currently in progress, an underpass was constructed that provides a direct connection for
pedestrians and bicyclists between areas to the west and east of the Caltrain tracks. This underpass
also provides a connection to the new Caltrain station platform. Currently, there is no ADA access
from Dubuque Avenue to the Caltrain station platform, which is accessible by stairs, however, the
580 Dubuque project that is under development includes a condition of approval to provide a
pedestrian route to the station that is ADA accessible.
A significant impact would occur if the proposed project conflicted with applicable or adopted
policies, plans or programs related to pedestrian facilities or otherwise decreased the performance
or safety of pedestrian facilities. The project would not remove any pedestrian facilities nor conflict
with Active South City, the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The South San Francisco
General Plan requires project proponents to provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage
improvements for new development. The project would reconstruct the sidewalk along its frontage
on Dubuque Avenue in order to move it away from the curb and change it to a curving path through
plantings and trees. Striped crosswalks would connect the sidewalk across both driveways.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the existing and planned
pedestrian facilities.
Page 72 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Bicyclists: Bicycle access to the project site is currently limited as there are no bike lanes on
Dubuque Avenue. In the vicinity of the project, Class II bike lanes are located on Airport Boulevard
(north of Miller Avenue), along Poletti Way, Gateway Boulevard (between E Grand Avenue and
Airport Boulevard), along Sister Cities Boulevard, and along Oyster Point Boulevard (east of Gateway
Boulevard). The new pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing provides bicycle access between East Grand
Avenue /Poletti Way and Airport Boulevard, with direct access to the South San Francisco Caltrain
station platform. The existing Caltrain Station access driveway on Dubuque Avenue would provide
bicycle access between the Caltrain station and the project site. An impact to bicyclists would occur
if the proposed project disrupted existing bicycle facilities or conflicted with or created
inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, and policies. The project would not
remove any bicycle facilities nor would it conflict with Active South City, which proposes upgrades to
some of the existing bike lanes near the project site. Therefore, the impact to bicycle facilities would
be less than significant.
Transit: Existing transit service to the study area is provided by Caltrain, San Mateo County Transit
District (SamTrans), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Water Emergency Transit (WETA), and commuter
shuttles. The project site is located less than 1/2-mile from the Caltrain station. Since the project is
located close to the Caltrain station, it is expected to generate trips via transit services. According to
state CEQA guidelines, the addition of new transit riders should not be treated as an adverse impact
because such development also improves regional flow by adding less vehicle travel onto the
regional network. Additionally, the recent Caltrain station improvement project has been planned to
accommodate increases in ridership. Therefore, the project is anticipated to have a less than
significant impact on transit facilities and services.
The Zoning Code Amendments associated with the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 included an
updated TDM Ordinance. A TDM program is required for the proposed project to meet the TDM
Ordinance, which requires a minimum of 50% alternative mode use (less than 50% single occupancy
vehicles). TDM program measures further promote alternative modes, including pedestrian, bicycle,
carpool, and transit options.
Per Senate Bill 743 discussed under this Section 17(b) below, auto delay, level of service (LOS), and
similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion are no longer considered as a basis for
determining significant impacts under CEQA. The following discussion is provided for informational
purposes and is based on the Local Transportation Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation
Consultants, Inc., which is available as part of the project material on file with the City.
The proposed project would generate an average of 5,635 new daily trips, with 815 new trips during
the AM peak hour and 815 new trips during the PM peak hour. These trips rates factor in
implementation of the required TDM program. The Local Transportation Assessment concluded that
the project would not cause any study intersections or highway segments to degrade from
acceptable operations to unacceptable operations with the exception of the intersection of Sister
Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard and Airport Boulevard, which would degrade to an
unacceptable level during AM peak hours with the addition of project traffic to existing traffic
volumes. Under cumulative conditions expected in 2040, six intersections studied would operate at
unacceptable levels during at least one of the peak hours, with or without the addition of project
traffic. The project would pay required Citywide Transportation Fees to offset any operational
impacts on the City’s transportation system. The General Plan 2040’s Mobility Plan identifies several
major transportation projects to improve traffic circulation in the East of 101 area, as most of the
study intersections are already built to capacity. The Citywide Transportation Fee is a source of
funding for transportation improvements such as those identified in the Mobility Plan.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 73
b) Vehicle Circulation and Congestion
Senate Bill (SB) 743 changed CEQA transportation impact analysis significance criteria to eliminate
auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as
a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA (although a jurisdiction may choose to
maintain these measures under its General Plan). The changes in CEQA Guidelines to implement SB
743 present vehicles miles traveled (VMT) as an appropriate measure of transportation impacts.
The City of South San Francisco provides VMT screening criteria for development projects. The
criteria are based on the type of project, characteristics, and/or location. If a project meets the City’s
screening criteria, the project is determined to result in less-than-significant impacts, and a detailed
VMT analysis is not required. The City’s policy states that projects within 0.5 miles of an existing or
planned high-quality transit corridor or major transit station should be presumed to have no impact
on VMT. However, this presumption would not apply if the project FAR is less than 0.75, includes
parking that is higher than required by the City, is inconsistent with Plan Bay Area, or replaces
affordable residential units with a smaller number of market-rate units. The project site is located
within 1/2 mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. The project is proposing an FAR of
approximately 3.33, does not exceed required parking spaces, and is consistent with the land use
under the City’s 2040 General Plan and related zoning.
Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis is not required and the impact with respect to VMT would be less
than significant. Additionally, South San Francisco Municipal Code requires preparation and
implementation of a TDM program, which requires a minimum of 50% alternative mode use (less
than 50% single occupancy vehicles). Successful implementation of TDM program measures could
serve to further reduce project VMT.
c) Hazards
The Transportation Analysis evaluated the sight distance at both project driveways on Dubuque
Avenue. According to the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue
is 30 mph. The sight distance was found to be adequate from either driveway looking right to the
north on Dubuque Avenue with the removal of the existing signboards at the project driveways.
However, sight distance looking left to the south is inadequate due to a slight curve to the road and
line-of-sight obstructions, including a utility pole, vegetation, signage, and a metal fence. The project
proposes to clear all line-of sight obstructions along the project site frontage on Dubuque Avenue,
including the utility poles, which would be removed as part of the project’s proposal to underground
approximately 462 linear feet of electrical line along the project’s Dubuque Avenue frontage. The
following mitigation would improve the safety at both driveways.
Mitigation Measure
Trans-1: Demonstrate Adequate Sight Distance at Project Driveways. The applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the sight distance is adequate at
both project driveways, which could include but is not limited to the following
measures:
• Coordination with the City to decrease the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue
to 25 mph.
• Coordination with the City to remove all line-of-sight obstructions
(vegetation, utility poles and sign boards) to create clear sight lines within
the City’s right-of-way to the south of the project site.
Page 74 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
• Coordination with the adjacent property to the south (720 Dubuque
Avenue/PG&E easement) to push back the existing metal fence on the
southern boundary of the project site and remove vegetation to provide a
clear zone to the south of the project’s southern driveway.
With these improvements, the impact with respect to traffic hazards would be less than significant
with mitigation.
As is standard practice, landscaping installed along the roadway frontage near driveways should be
maintained to be either low-lying or trees with canopies that do not fall below seven feet and
parking should be restricted within 25 feet of the driveways.
d) Emergency Access
The proposed project would not reroute or change any of the city streets in its vicinity that would
impact emergency vehicle access to properties along Dubuque Avenue. The proposed site access
roadways would accommodate emergency vehicles. The project would have no impact with regard
to inadequate emergency access.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 75
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
☒
a) Tribal Cultural Resources
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File was completed for
the project and indicated there are no known sacred lands present in the vicinity of the site (see
Attachment B). While no tribes have requested notification of potential consultation opportunities
for projects in this area, per recommendation of the Native American Heritage Commission, notice
was sent to listed tribes on October 12, 2022. No responses were received within the required 30
day response period.
The records search performed by the Northwest Information Center indicated that there is a
moderate to high potential for the inadvertent discovery of previously unrecorded Native American
resources based on the characteristics of the site and history of the region (see Attachment B).
Although previous studies included field survey of the project site, significant excavation and below-
grade levels are proposed, which would disturb previously-undisturbed native soils well below the
field survey levels. Construction activities associated with the project would include excavation
extending up to approximately 60 feet below the surface in the area of the parking garage.
Mitigation Measures Cul-1, Cul-2, and Cul-3 would require proper handling of any discoveries and
would also reduce the potential impact related to unknown tribal cultural
resources.
Compliance with the protection procedures specified in Mitigation Measures Cul-1, Cul-2, and Cul-3
would require that if any previously-unknown tribal cultural resources and/or human remains are
discovered, these would be handled appropriately and the impact of the project would be less than
significant with mitigation.
Page 76 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded
water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
☒
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
☒
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
☒
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☒
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? ☒
a, b, c) Water, Stormwater, Wastewater, and Other Utilities
Water
As discussed in Section 10: Hydrology and Water Quality, the City of South San Francisco’s East of
101 Area is served by Cal Water through a combination of local groundwater and water purchased
from SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy System. Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which
plans for provision of water, anticipates future growth in the region, but does not explicitly include
the project.
Based on preliminary Fire Flow Calculations and results from Fire Flow Tests performed by Cal
Water, the 6-inch water main in Dubuque Avenue has sufficient capacity to serve the project. Two
new fire water services and one new domestic water service will be installed between the main and
the buildings.
A separate Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the project per Senate Bill 610
through coordination between the City and Cal Water (available as part of the project materials on
file with the City). The WSA, prepared by EKI Environment & Water, Inc., in August 2022, estimates
the project’s net annual water demand to be approximately 189 acre-feet per year. Because this
project was not explicitly accounted for in the SSF District 2020 UWMP, the water demand of the
project was assumed to not be included in the projected SSF District water demands.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 77
In 2021, Cal Water started a Development Offset Program, which requires any new residential,
commercial, or industrial development within any of the three Peninsula Districts that is projected
to demand more than 50 acre-feet per year to pay a special facilities fee per acre-feet of net
demand increase, to fund projects that will increase supply reliability. The project would be
responsible for offsetting its actual anticipated net demand, based on detailed calculations for the
final project design. Cal Water would verify compliance with the Development Offset Program
before establishing a water service connection to the project. With the offset of the net increase of
water through payment of the special facilities fee, the project would not be expected to result in a
net increase in water demands to Cal Water’s SSF District. Impacts with respect to water would be
less than significant. 32, 33, 34
Wastewater
The wastewater collection system that serves the project site is owned and operated by the City of
South San Francisco. The nearest publicly-owned sewer system, which is owned and maintained by
the City, is an 8-inch main located within a sewer easement along the southeastern property line of
the project site. The project would construct two onsite sanitary sewer lines, as well as connections
to the existing public sewer line to the east.
The project is also proposing upsizing of the existing 8-inch sewer main to a 10-inch main
approximately 1,400 linear feet along the project site and south to the existing 10-inch main that
crosses the Caltrain tracks.
The existing 10-inch sewer main across the Caltrain tracks (between manhole sJ2750 near the
southern edge of the 720 Dubuque Avenue parcel and Poletti Way) has sufficient capacity, but is
older and developing some deficiencies (pipe roughness and sags). The project is also proposing to
rehabilitate this approximately 200 linear foot length in place, which could include sliplining, cured
in place pipe, pipe bursting, or replacement of the existing pipe with a new 10-inch sewer main.
It is anticipated that with the proposed sewer main improvements, there would be adequate
capacity for the project and other anticipated potential future office/R&D development along the
Dubuque Avenue corridor consistent with the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. (If residential
development is instead proposed along this corridor, further upsizing may be required.)
The ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 EIR analyzed buildout of 14,100,523 new square feet of non-
residential building space at full buildout and determined that no new or expanded wastewater
treatment facilities would be required to provide services to the anticipated new buildout, including
the current project.35 The impact related to required wastewater capacity would be less than
significant.
32 California State Water Board, amended plan adopted December 12, 2021, Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plans_policies/docs/2018wqcp.pdf .
33 BAWSCA, Water Reliability webpage, available at: https://bawsca.org/water/reliability
34 California Water Service (Cal Water), adopted June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Francisco District.,
available at: https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf.
35 FirstCarbon Solutions, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and
Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. June 24, 2022.
Page 78 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
Stormwater
As discussed in Section 10: Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed drainage system would
maintain the existing flow discharge pattern and connect to the existing storm drain system
operated and maintained by the City of South San Francisco. The existing storm drainpipes on site
would be removed and replaced by new storm drainpipes that would loop around the building. In
compliance with City requirements, the project would implement low-impact development
stormwater management best practices to minimize runoff and encourage stormwater infiltration,
including using concrete-lined flow-through planters to manage stormwater on the project site. As
redevelopment on a currently developed site, the project would result in a decrease in impervious
surface (to 79% of the site) and would construct a new above and below ground drainage system
that includes catch-basins, storm drainpipe, bio-retention areas, and flow-through planters to
capture, treat, and discharge runoff from the entire site. With an increase of pervious surface area
and on-site storm drainage infrastructure that would reduce the existing runoff rate, the project
would reduce demand on the storm drainage facilities compared to existing conditions. Impacts
with respect to stormwater would be less than significant.
Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
As discussed in Section 6: Energy, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, the project would not require the construction of
new electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities because it is located in an urban
area already served by those utilities. The project proposes to underground the electrical lines along
the project’s frontage on Dubuque Avenue (approximately 462 linear feet) in coordination with
PG&E. This is consistent with Policy LU-8.10 of the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040, which includes
undergrounding new and existing utilities when feasible.36
The project would be designed to operate on 100% electric energy. As an infill site in applicable
service areas, the project impacts with respect to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications
would be less than significant.
d, e) Solid Waste and Solid Waste Reduction
South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. (SSFSC) manages all trash and recycling services in
South San Francisco. SSFSC collects, receives, processes, and recycles (or transfers for landfill
disposal) over 250,000 tons of waste a year.37 Of all solid waste generated, approximately 84
percent is sent to the Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mountain) in Half Moon Bay, California. The
Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mountain) accepts up to 3,598 tons per day and is anticipated to
have available capacity until 2034.38
36 City of South San Francisco, 2040 General Plan. February 2022.
37 South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. website, “About Us”, available at: https://ssfscavenger.com/about-us/,
accessed August 2022.
38 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2019, SWIS Facility Detail: Corinda Los Trancos
Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-002), https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=3223, accessed
August 2022.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 79
The proposed project would generate solid waste during construction and operation. Handling of
debris and waste generated during construction would be subject to SSFMC Section 8.16
coordination with Scavengers Company; and SSFMC Section 15.22.030 diversion of at least 65
percent of construction or demolition waste.
The project would generate approximately 68.39 tons of waste per year, or approximately 0.19 tons
per day. The estimate is conservative as it does not factor in any recycling or waste-diversion
programs. The 0.19 tons of solid waste generated daily by the project would represent less than
0.001 percent of the permitted landfill throughput.39
The City of South San Francisco is required to meet the statewide waste diversion goal of 50 percent
set by AB 939. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste, such as AB 939, the SSFMC, and the City’s recycling program.
Impacts related to solid waste and waste facilities would be less than significant.
39 Solid waste estimated from CalEEMod output in Attachment A.
Page 80 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such
as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☒
a-d) Wildfire Risk and Emergency Response
The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of South San Francisco and is
surrounded by existing industrial/commercial development and infrastructure. Neither the project
site nor the City of South San Francisco is identified as being within a state responsibility area or a
very high fire hazard severity zone.40, 41 The proposed project would have no impact related to
wildfire.
40 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State
Responsibility Area. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-building-
codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/.
41 Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area, November 24, 2008, available at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6800/fhszl_map41.pdf.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 81
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
☒
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
☒
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ☒
a) Environmental Quality. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1 to protect nesting
birds during construction and Cul-1 through Cul-3 to address the potential discovery of currently
unknown cultural, tribal cultural, or paleontological resources at the site, the project would not
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, or threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community. The project would not impact rare or endangered wildlife species or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Cumulative Impacts. The project would not result in adverse impacts that are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable, including effects for which project-level mitigation were identified to
reduce impacts to less than significant levels. All potential effects of the project were assessed in the
context of area development, including assessment of emissions impacts analyzed against
cumulative thresholds per the Air District recommendations. Project-specific impacts would be less
than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in this document, including
Mitigation Measure GP-MM-Air-1a to address construction period dust and emissions, and would
not result in contribution of considerable levels to cumulative impacts.
c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings. The project would not result in substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation Measures GP-MM-Air-1a, Air-2, Geo-1, and
Haz-1 would minimize the potential for safety impacts related to construction-period emissions,
disturbance of site contaminants, and appropriate techniques for safety during excavation and
building construction. Therefore, the potential adverse effects on human beings would be less than
significant with mitigation.
Page 82 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND
DOCUMENT PREPARERS
Lamphier -Gregory, Inc.
(Primary Report Preparers)
Rebecca Auld, Vice President
Jenna Sunderlin, Environmental Planner
4100 Redwood Road, STE 20A - #601
Oakland, CA 94619
510-535-6690
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
(Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis)
James A. Reyff, Principal
Zachary Palm, Emissions Consultant
429 E. Cotati Ave
Cotati, CA 94931
707-794-0400
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
(Transportation Analysis)
Trisha Dudala, P.E.
Senior Associate
5776 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 175
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-225-1439
City of South San Francisco
This document was prepared in coordination with City of South San Francisco staff, including
Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner.
SOURCES
1. Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Plan Bay Area
2050 Final Blueprint Growth Pattern, January 2021.
2. BAWSCA, Water Reliability webpage, available at: https://bawsca.org/water/reliability
3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, May 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air
Quality Guidelines.
4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, June 2, 2010, News Release
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Communications%20and%20Outreach/Publications/News%
20Releases/2010/ceqa_100602.ashx
5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. December 2021. Frequently Asked Questions for 2022
Permit Reform and Implementation of Regulation 2-1 and 2-5 Amendments.
6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. December 15, 2021. Regulation 2 Permits Rule 1 General
Requirements, Regulation 2-1-243
7. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007, San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity
Zones in State Responsibility Areas, available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-
engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/.
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 83
8. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program,
November 24, 2008, San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility
Area, available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6800/fhszl_map41.pdf.
9. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2019, SWIS Facility Detail:
Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-002), website accessed at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=3223
10. California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Mapping System, available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-
scenic-highways
11. California Geological Survey, 2021, Tsunami Hazard Area Map, San Mateo County, available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.
12. California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Bay Basin
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), November 2019.
13. California Water Service (Cal Water), adopted June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan:
South San Francisco District.
14. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport.
15. City of South San Francisco, 2022, ShapeSSF General Plan 2040.
16. Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor Database, website accessed at
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
17. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), April 2019, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map
Number 06081C0042F.
18. FirstCarbon Solutions, June 24, 2022, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan
Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo
County, California.
19. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, July 9, 2021, Geotechnical Investigation.
20. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, September 2, 2022, Draft Dewatering Assessment.
21. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, July 15, 2022, Draft Soil and Groundwater
Management Plan
22. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, Transit Priority Areas, accessed at:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=370de9dc4d65402d992a769bf6ac8ef5
23. Ramboll US Consulting, Inc., January 2021, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
24. South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. website, “About Us”, available at:
https://ssfscavenger.com/about-us/.
25. State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker Database, website accessed at
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
26. University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Online Database. 2019. UCMP specimen
search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/.
27. U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Resources Data System: U.S. Geological Survey, website accessed at:
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT
ATTACHMENT A
to the
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
800 DUBUQUE AVENUE
CONSTRUCTION AIR QUALITY
AND GREENHOUSE GAS
ASSESSMENT
South San Francisco, California
November 22, 2022
Revised March 24, 2023
Prepared for:
Rebecca Auld
Vice President
Lamphier-Gregory
100 Redwood Rd, Suite 20A - #601
Oakland, CA 94619
Prepared by:
Zachary Palm
James A. Reyff
429 East Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
(707) 794-0400
I&R Project#: 22-106
1
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to address the potential community risk impacts associated with the
construction of the proposed residential project located at 800 Dubuque Avenue in South San
Francisco, California. The air quality impacts and GHG emissions would be associated with the
demolition of the existing uses at the site, construction of the new building and infrastructure, and
operation of the project. Air pollutant emissions associated with construction of the project were
predicted using appropriate computer models. In addition, the potential project construction health
risk impacts and the impact of existing toxic air contaminant (TAC) sources affecting the nearby
and proposed sensitive receptors were evaluated. The analysis was conducted following guidance
provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).1
Project Description
The 5.89-acre project site is currently comprised of two one-story buildings and one two-story
building, totaling 113,595 square feet (sf) of office/R&D (life science) use and associated parking.
The project proposes to demolish the existing buildings and parking to construct three office/R&D
(life science) buildings totaling up to 900,000 square feet (sf). Four levels of subterranean parking
are also planned which would provide 1,335 parking spaces, of which 81 electric vehicle (EV)
parking spaces are proposed to be constructed up front (6% of total) with an additional 268 spaces
EV-ready for future operation (20% of total). This is consistent with the requirements under
Section 20.330.008 of the City’s Municipal Code and the CalGreen Tier 2 requirements at the time
of project application. For purposes of this analysis, construction was assumed to begin as early as
August 2023 and be completed by March 2027.
Setting
The project is located in San Mateo County, which is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and federal level. The Bay
Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone, respirable
particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
Air Pollutants of Concern
High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions
to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of
the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. The highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in
the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone
levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase
coughing and chest discomfort.
Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. Particulate matter is
assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of
10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5
1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017.
2
micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both
region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels
aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g.,
lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or
mortality (usually because they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air
pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry,
agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically
found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a
freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the
regional, State, and federal level.
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-
quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors,
and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a
complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and
formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as
carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants
programs. The most recent Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk
assessment guidelines were published in February of 2015.2 See Attachment 1 for a detailed
description of the community risk modeling methodology used in this assessment.
Sensitive Receptors
There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the
following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly
over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups
are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these
sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care
facilities, and elementary schools. For cancer risk assessments, children are the most sensitive
receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer causing TACs. Residential locations are
assumed to include infants and small children. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site
are in the multi-family residences to the west of the project site. There are more receptors at further
distances, including children at the Gateway Child Development Center YMCA approximately
750 feet southeast of the project site. This project would not introduce new sensitive receptors (i.e.,
residents) to the area.
2 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
February.
3
Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets nationwide emission standards
for mobile sources, which include on-road (highway) motor vehicles such trucks, buses, and
automobiles, and non-road (off-road) vehicles and equipment used in construction, agricultural,
industrial, and mining activities (such as bulldozers and loaders). The EPA also sets nationwide
fuel standards. California also has the ability to set motor vehicle emission standards and standards
for fuel used in California, as long as they are the same or more stringent than the federal standards.
In the past decade the EPA has established a number of emission standards for on- and non-road
heavy-duty diesel engines used in trucks and other equipment. This was done in part because diesel
engines are a significant source of NOX and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and because the
EPA has identified DPM as a probable carcinogen. Implementation of the heavy-duty diesel on-
road vehicle standards and the non-road diesel engine standards are estimated to reduce particulate
matter and NOX emissions from diesel engines up to 95 percent in 2030 when the heavy-duty
vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these
emission standards.3
In concert with the diesel engine emission standards, the EPA has also substantially reduced the
amount of sulfur allowed in diesel fuels. The sulfur contained in diesel fuel is a significant
contributor to the formation of particulate matter in diesel-fueled engine exhaust. The new
standards reduced the amount of sulfur allowed by 97 percent for highway diesel fuel (from 500
parts per million by weight [ppmw] to 15 ppmw), and by 99 percent for off-highway diesel fuel
(from about 3,000 ppmw to 15 ppmw). The low sulfur highway fuel (15 ppmw sulfur), also called
ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD), is currently required for use by all vehicles in the U.S.
All of the above federal diesel engine and diesel fuel requirements have been adopted by
California, in some cases with modifications making the requirements more stringent or the
implementation dates sooner.
State Regulations
To address the issue of diesel emissions in the state, CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to
Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles.4 In addition to
requiring more stringent emission standards for new on-road and off-road mobile sources and
stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce particulate matter emissions by 90 percent, a significant
component of the plan involves application of emission control strategies to existing diesel
vehicles and equipment. Many of the measures of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan have been
approved and adopted, including the federal on-road and non-road diesel engine emission
standards for new engines, as well as adoption of regulations for low sulfur fuel in California.
3 USEPA, 2000. Regulatory Announcement, Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel
Sulfur Control Requirements. EPA420-F-00-057. December.
4 California Air Resources Board, 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-
Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October.
4
CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources to
reduce emissions of DPM. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy-duty
diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. CARB
regulations require on-road diesel trucks to be retrofitted with particulate matter controls or
replaced to meet 2010 or later engine standards that have much lower DPM and PM2.5 emissions.
This regulation will substantially reduce these emissions between 2013 and 2023. While new
trucks and buses will meet strict federal standards, this measure is intended to accelerate the rate
at which the fleet either turns over so there are more cleaner vehicles on the road or is retrofitted
to meet similar standards. With this regulation, older, more polluting trucks would be removed
from the roads sooner.
CARB has also adopted and implemented regulations to reduce DPM and NOX emissions from in-
use (existing) and new off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles (e.g., loaders, tractors, bulldozers,
backhoes, off-highway trucks, etc.). The regulations apply to diesel-powered off-road vehicles
with engines 25 horsepower (hp) or greater. The regulations are intended to reduce particulate
matter and NOX exhaust emissions by requiring owners to turn over their fleet (replace older
equipment with newer equipment) or retrofit existing equipment in order to achieve specified fleet-
averaged emission rates. Implementation of this regulation, in conjunction with stringent federal
off-road equipment engine emission limits for new vehicles, will significantly reduce emissions of
DPM and NOX.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
BAAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 5,600-square mile area, commonly referred to
as the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). The District’s boundary encompasses the nine San
Francisco Bay Area counties, including Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County,
San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Napa County, southwestern
Solano County, and southern Sonoma County.
BAAQMD is the lead agency in developing plans to address attainment and maintenance of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The
District also has permit authority over most types of stationary equipment utilized for the proposed
project. The BAAQMD is responsible for permitting and inspection of stationary sources;
enforcement of regulations, including setting fees, levying fines, and enforcement actions; and
ensuring that public nuisances are minimized.
BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate
and reduce health risks associated with exposures to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area.5 The program
examines TAC emissions from point sources, area sources, and on-road and off-road mobile
sources with an emphasis on diesel exhaust, which is a major contributor to airborne health risk in
California. The CARE program is an on-going program that encourages community involvement
and input. The technical analysis portion of the CARE program is being implemented in three
phases that includes an assessment of the sources of TAC emissions, modeling and measurement
5 See BAAQMD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/community-
air-risk-evaluation-care-program , accessed 2/18/2021.
5
programs to estimate concentrations of TAC, and an assessment of exposures and health risks.
Throughout the program, information derived from the technical analyses will be used to focus
emission reduction measures in areas with high TAC exposures and high density of sensitive
populations. Risk reduction activities associated with the CARE program are focused on the most
at-risk communities in the Bay Area. Overburdened communities are areas located (i) within a
census tract identified by the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool
(CalEnviroScreen), Version 4.0 implemented by OEHHA, as having an overall CalEnviroScreen
score at or above the 70th percentile, or (ii) within 1,000 feet of any such census tract.6 The
BAAQMD has identified six communities as impacted: Concord, Richmond/San Pablo, Western
Alameda County, San José, Redwood City/East Palo Alto, and Eastern San Francisco. The project
site is located within a BAAQMD overburdened area as the Project site is scored at the 83rd
percentile as identified by CalEnviroScreen due to high exposure to diesel particulate matter
(DPM) and traffic, but it is not within a CARE area.7
The BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines8 were
prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the
Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts
during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements including thresholds
of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include
assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions. Attachment 1
includes detailed community risk modeling methodology.
BAAQMD Rules and Regulations
Combustion equipment associated with the proposed project that includes new diesel engines to
power generators would establish new sources of particulate matter and gaseous emissions.
Emissions would primarily result from the testing of the emergency backup generators. Certain
emission sources would be subject to BAAQMD Regulations and Rules. The District’s rules and
regulations that may apply to the project include:
Regulation 2 – Permits
Rule 2-1: General Requirements
Rule 2-2: New Source Review
Regulation 6 – Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions
Rule 6-3: Wood-Burning Devices
Regulation 9 – Inorganic Gaseous Pollutants
Rule 9-1: Sulfur Dioxide
Rule 9-7: Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Industrial, Institutional, and
Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, And Process Heaters
Rule 9-8: Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Stationary Internal
Combustion Engines
6 See BAAQMD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-2-permits/2021-
amendments/documents/20210722_01_appendixd_mapsofoverburdenedcommunities-pdf.pdf?la=en , accessed
10/1/2021.
7 OEHAA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Indicator Maps https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40
8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May.
6
Permits
Rule 2-1-301 requires that any person installing, modifying, or replacing any equipment, the use
of which may reduce or control the emission of air contaminants, shall first obtain an Authority to
Construct (ATC).
Rule 2-1-302 requires that written authorization from the BAAQMD in the form of a Permit to
Operate (PTO) be secured before any such equipment is used or operated.
Rule 2-1 lists sources that are exempt from permitting.
New Source Review
Rule 2-2, New Source Review (NSR), applies to all new and modified sources or facilities that are
subject to the requirements of Rule 2-1-301. The purpose of the rule is to provide for review of
such sources and to provide mechanisms by which no net increase in emissions will result.
Rule 2-2-301 requires that an applicant for an ATC or PTO apply Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) to any new or modified source that results in an increase in emissions and
has emissions of precursor organic compounds, non-precursor organic compounds, NOx, SO2,
PM10, or CO of 10.0 pounds or more per highest day. Based on the estimated emissions from the
proposed project, BACT will be required for NOx emissions from the diesel-fueled generator
engines.
Stationary Diesel Airborne Toxic Control Measure
The BAAQMD administers the CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ACTM) for Stationary
Diesel engines (section 93115, title 17 CA Code of Regulations). The project’s stationary sources
will be new stationary emergency stationary emergency standby diesel engines larger than 50 hp.
These limits vary based on maximum engine power. All engines are limited to PM emission rates
of 0.15 g/hp-hour, regardless of size. This ACTM limits engine operation 50 hours per year for
routine testing and maintenance.
Offsets
Rule 2-2-302 require that offsets be provided for a new or modified source that emits more than
10 tons per year of NOx or precursor organic compounds.
Prohibitory Rules
Regulation 6 pertains to particulate matter and visible emissions. Although the engines will be
fueled with diesel, they will be modern, low emission engines. Thus, the engines are expected to
comply with Regulation 6.
7
Rule 6-3 applies to emissions from wood-burning devices. Effective November 1, 2016, no person
or builder shall install a wood-burning device in a new building construction.
Rule 9-1 applies to sulfur dioxide. The engines will use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (less than 15
ppm sulfur) and will not be a significant source of sulfur dioxide emissions and are expected to
comply with the requirements of Rule 9-1.
Rule 9-7 limits the emissions of NOx CO from industrial, institutional and commercial boilers,
steam generators and process heaters. This regulation typically applies to boilers with a heat rating
of 2 million British Thermal Units (BTU) per hour
Rule 9-8 prescribes NOx and CO emission limits for stationary internal combustion engines. Since
the proposed engines will be used with emergency standby generators, Regulation 9-8-110
exempts the engines from the requirements of this Rule, except for the recordkeeping requirements
(9-8-530) and limitations on hours of operation for reliability-related operation (maintenance and
testing). The engines will not operate more than 50 hours per year, which will satisfy the
requirements of 9-8-111.
BACT for Diesel Generator Engines
Since the generators will be used exclusively for emergency use during involuntary loss of power,
the BACT levels listed for IC compression engines in the BAAQMD BACT Guidelines would
apply. These are provided for two separate size ranges of diesel engines:
I.C. Engine – Compression Ignition >50hp and <1.000hp: BAAQMD applies BACT 2
emission limits based on the ATCM for stationary emergency standby diesel engines larger
than 50 brake-horsepower (BHP). NOx emission factor limit is subject to the CARB
ACTM that ranges from 3.0 to 3.5 grams per horsepower hour (g/hp-hr). The PM (PM10
or PM2.5) limit is 0.15 g/hp-hr per CARB’s ACTM.
I.C. Engine – Compression Ignition <999hp: BAAQMD applies specific BACT emission
limits for stationary emergency standby diesel engines equal or larger than 1,000 brake-
horsepower (BHP). NOx emission factor limit is subject to the CARB ACTM that ranges
from 0.5 g/hp-hr. The PM (PM10 or PM2.5) limit is 0.02 g/hp-hr. POC (i.e., ROG) limits
are 0.14 g/hp-hr.
City of South San Francisco 2040 General Plan
Adopted in October 2022, the City of South San Francisco 2040 General Plan includes guiding
and implementing policies to reduce exposure of the City’s sensitive population to exposure of air
pollution, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases9. It includes a goal of reaching carbon
neutrality by 2045 and has set a target of a 40% reduction in communitywide emissions by 2030.
The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project:
9 City of South San Francisco, URL: https://shapessf.com/wp-
content/uploads/2022/11/SSFGPU_PDFPlan_FinalPlan_Resolution.pdf
8
General Plan Air Quality Policies
Sub-Areas Element
SA-28.5 Require sustainable and environmentally sensitive design. Incorporate
sustainable and environmentally sensitive design and equipment, energy
conservation features, water conservation measures and drought-tolerant or
equivalent landscaping, and sustainable stormwater management features.
SA-32.5 Create buffering from US-101. Create landscaping buffers and other buffers to
reduce noise, visual, and air quality impacts from US-101. A Prosperous economy
for All Element
A Prosperous Economy for All Element
PE-2.1 Reinvest in industrial property. Within areas targeted for retention of industrial
uses, support industrial property owners seeking to reinvest in and modernize
their properties and come into compliance with environmental regulations, current
building codes, and use/production of green energy.
Community Health and Environmental Justice
CHEJ-3.1 Support regional efforts to improve air quality and protect human health.
Action CHEJ-3.1.1 Monitor air quality in Lindenville, East of 101 and downtown.
Work with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to establish and
identify funding for air quality monitoring and reduction strategies. This
action may include purchasing particulate matter (PM2.5) monitors to
track local air quality data in Lindenville, East of 101, and Downtown.
CHEJ-3.2 Reduce mobile source pollution. Reduce emissions from mobile sources of air
pollution, such as diesel-based trucks and vehicles that travel to, from, or through
South San Francisco.
CHEJ-3.3 Support businesses transitioning their operations to emit fewer air
pollutants. Support local business owners in transitioning their operations to emit
fewer air pollutants through incentives and development standards.
Action CHEJ-3.3.1 Explore incentives for pollution reduction. Explore
opportunities for production, distribution, and warehousing uses in
Lindenville and East of 101 to reduce pollution, such as greener trucks,
energy efficient buildings, and other strategies.
Action CHEJ-3.3.2 Reduce indoor air pollution. Explore opportunities to work
with property owners to rehabilitate existing buildings and require that new
buildings adjacent to production, distribution, and warehousing uses;
highways; or rail to implement appropriate mitigation measures to reduce
9
indoor air pollution such as air filtration/ventilation systems, landscaping,
and other physical improvements as recommended by the California Air
Resources Board and/or the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Action CHEJ-3.2.1 Maintain Truck route map to minimize exposure. Maintain
an up-to-date truck routes map that minimizes exposures to sensitive land
uses. Prohibit the designation of new truck routes on local neighborhood
streets in South San Francisco
Action CHEJ-3.2.2 Adopt an ordinance establishing vehicle idling restrictions.
Establish a local ordinance that exceeds the State vehicle idling
restrictions where appropriate, including restrictions for bus layovers,
delivery vehicles, trucks at warehouses and distribution facilities and taxis,
particularly when these activities take place near sensitive land uses
(schools, healthcare facilities, affordable housing, and elder and childcare
centers). Manage truck idling in new residential neighborhoods in
Lindenville and East of 101.
Community Resilience Element
CR-6.1 Support resilient building design. Support resilient building design by helping
residents weatherize homes to keep them cooler and more energy efficient and to
improve indoor air quality.
CP-3.1.1 Incentivize energy efficient new construction. Provide incentives to encourage
new construction to exceed California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards
outlined in Title 24, Part 6.
City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan
BNC 1.1 Improve the energy efficiency of new construction. Provide a combination of
financial and development process incentives (e.g., Expedited permitting, FAR
increases, etc.) to encourage new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency
standard.
TL 2.2 TDM Program. Implement, monitor, and enforce compliance with the City’s
TDM Ordinance.
WW 2.1 Indoor Water Efficiency Standards. Require high-efficiency fixtures in all new
construction and major renovations, comparable to CALGreen Tier 1 or 2
standards.
Goal CP-1: A Carbon Neutral Community
CP-1.1 Maintain and update the Climate Action Plan. Maintain and regularly update
the City’s Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
10
generated within the City. Ensure the City’s GHG emission target is consistent with
California’s GHG reduction goals in order to be a qualified plan for California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CP-1.2 Monitor progress towards carbon neutrality goal. Track and report progress
towards achieving the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goal.
Goal CP-2: A resilient and fossil fuel free energy system
CP-2.1 Maintain Peninsula Clean Energy membership. Maintain City membership in
Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) and continue to work to maintain a high level of
private property owner participation in PCE.
Goal CP-3: Green buildings are the standard in South San Francisco for new construction and
major renovations
CP-3.1 Building code maintenance for new and major renovations (energy efficiency).
Regularly update South San Francisco’s building codes to improve the energy
performance of new construction and major remodels and to phase in requirements
in predictable ways.
CP-3.4 Adopt Electric Vehicle charging reach code. Adopt higher electric vehicle
charging requirements than CALGreen for multifamily and nonresidential new
construction.
City of South San Francisco—General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate
Action Plan Program EIR
The City’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressed air quality impacts associated with land
use development in South San Francisco that is consistent with the General Plan Update, zoning
code amendments and Climate Action Plan10. Air quality impacts and mitigation measures were
identified in the EIR.
Significance Thresholds
In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects
under CEQA and these significance thresholds were contained in the District’s 2011 CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines. These thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD
believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. The
thresholds were challenged through a series of court challenges and were mostly upheld.
BAAQMD updated its thresholds in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in 2017 and again in 2022
(GHG thresholds only). The latest BAAQMD significance thresholds, which were used in this
analysis and are summarized in Table 1. Impacts above the threshold are considered potentially
significant.
10 City of South San Francisco. 2022. General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan
Draft Program EIR See: https://shapessf.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/SSF-GPU-Final-EIR_Combined.pdf
11
Table 1. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Criteria Air
Pollutant
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs./day)
Annual Average
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour
average)
Fugitive Dust Construction Dust Ordinance or
other Best Management Practices Not Applicable
Health Risks and
Hazards
Single Sources Within 1,000-
foot Zone of Influence
Combined Sources (Cumulative from all
sources within 1000-foot zone of influence)
Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 100 per one million
Hazard Index 1.0 10.0
Incremental annual
PM2.5 0.3 µg/m3 0.8 µg/m3
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Land Use Projects –
(Must Include A or
B)
A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:
1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing
(in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy
usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section
21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
2. Transportation
a. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
below the regional average consistent with the current version of the
California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a
locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations
provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical
Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita
ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee
iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
b. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most
recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).
Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with
an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less. GHG = greenhouse gases.
12
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact AIR-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
BAAQMD is the regional agency responsible for overseeing compliance with State and Federal
laws, regulations, and programs within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB).
BAAQMD, with assistance from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), prepares and implements specific plans to meet
the applicable laws, regulations, and programs. The most recent and comprehensive of which is
the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan.11 The primary goals of the Clean Air Plan are to attain air
quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce GHG
emissions and protect the climate. The BAAQMD has also developed CEQA guidelines to assist
lead agencies in evaluating the significance of air quality and GHG impacts. In formulating
compliance strategies, BAAQMD relies on planned land uses established by local general plans.
Land use planning affects vehicle travel, which, in turn, affects region-wide emissions of air
pollutants and GHGs.
The 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted by BAAQMD in April 2017, includes control measures that are
intended to reduce air pollutant emissions in the Bay Area either directly or indirectly. Plans must
show consistency with the control measures listed within the Clean Air Plan. General Plan
consistency was evaluated in the EIR for the General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments,
and Climate Action Plan. A significant and unavoidable impact was identified because VMT
would increase at a greater rate than population. Mitigation measures would ensure that certain
Clean Air Plan measures are properly implemented so that some projects developed under the
General Plan would not have significant air quality impacts.
Mitigation measure MM AIR-1a would reduce construction period by requiring individual projects
facilitated by the General Plan to incorporate Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
recommended by BAAQMD
Because the General Plan does not contain a land use diagram that identifies special overlay zones
around existing and planned sources of TACs, MM AIR-1b would be required to ensure that future
development would result in less than significant impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrations.
To reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), MM TRANS-1 from the General Plan EIR requires the
City to implement its Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance as part of the
Zoning Code Amendments and parking requirements. The City shall also update its TDM
Ordinance and parking requirements every five to ten years and establish an East of 101 Area Trip
Cap, to achieve the maximum feasible reductions in vehicle travel. The City shall achieve the
performance standards outlined in the TDM Ordinance
11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan.
13
Conclusion AIR-1
The Project is consistent with the General Plan because of its compliance with MM AIR-1a, MM
AIR-1b, and MM TRANS-1. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the latest Clean Air
planning efforts. Additionally, 1) the Project would have construction and operational emissions
below the BAAQMD thresholds (see Impact 2 below), 2) the project would be considered urban
infill, and 3) the project would be located near transit with regional connections.
Impact AIR-2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level O3 and PM2.5 under both the
Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non-attainment
for PM10 under the California Clean Air Act, but not the federal act. The area has attained both
State and Federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. As part of an effort to attain
and maintain ambient air quality standards for O3, PM2.5 and PM10, the BAAQMD has established
thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. These thresholds are for O3
precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx), PM10, and PM2.5 and apply to both construction period and
operational period impacts.
Construction Period Emissions
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 was used to estimate
emissions from on-site construction activity, construction vehicle trips, and evaporative emissions.
The project land use types and size, and anticipated construction schedule were input to
CalEEMod. The CARB EMission FACtors 2021 (EMFAC2021) model was used to predict
emissions from construction traffic, which includes worker travel, vendor trucks, and haul trucks.12
The CalEEMod model output along with construction inputs are included in Attachment 2 and
EMFAC2021 vehicle emissions modeling outputs are included in Attachment 3.
CalEEMod Inputs
Land Uses
The proposed project land uses were entered into CalEEMod as described in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Project Land Use Inputs
Project Land Uses Size Units Square Feet (sf) Acreage
Research & Development 900 1,000-sf 900,000 5.9 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,420 Parking Spaces 640,000
12 See CARB’s EMFAC2021 Emissions Inventory at https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory.
14
Construction Inputs
CalEEMod computes annual emissions for construction that are based on the project type, size,
and acreage. The model provides emission estimates for both on-site and off-site construction
activities. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off-
site activity includes worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. The construction build-out scenario,
including equipment list and schedule, were based on CalEEMod defaults that were reviewed and
slightly modified by the applicant.
The construction equipment worksheets provided by the applicant included the schedule for each
phase. Within each phase, the quantity of equipment to be used, average hours per day, and total
number of workdays was provided by the applicant. Much of the stationary equipment used during
the building phase would be electric powered. Since different equipment would have different
estimates of the working days per phase, the hours per day for each phase was computed by
dividing the total number of hours that the equipment would be used by the total number of days
in that phase.
A phase for interior work was not provided. Therefore, it was assumed that interior work would
be conducted during the last 6 months of the construction period that involves finishing, landscape
and paving work. This phase would occur in 2026 and 2027.
The construction schedule assumed that the earliest possible start date would be August 2023 and
would be built out over a period of approximately 44 months, or 954 construction workdays. The
earliest year of full operation was assumed to be 2028.
Construction Truck Traffic Emissions
Construction would produce traffic in the form of worker trips and truck traffic. The traffic-related
emissions are based on worker and vendor trip estimates produced by CalEEMod and haul trips
that were computed based on the estimate of demolition material to be exported, soil material
imported and/or exported to the site, and the estimate of concrete and asphalt truck trips.
CalEEMod provides daily estimates of worker and vendor trips for each applicable phase. The
total trips for those were computed by multiplying the daily trip rate by the number of days in that
phase. Haul trips for demolition and grading were estimated from the provided demolition and
grading volumes, using CalEEMod default hauling truck trip rates. The number of concrete and
asphalt total round haul trips were provided for the project and converted to total one-way trips,
assuming two trips per delivery.
The latest version of the CalEEMod model is based on the older version of the CARB
EMFAC2017 motor vehicle emission factor model. This model has been superseded by the
EMFAC2021 model; however, CalEEMod has not been updated to include EMFAC2021.
Therefore, the construction traffic information was combined with EMFAC2021 motor vehicle
emissions factors. EMFAC2021 provides aggregate emission rates in grams per mile for each
vehicle type. The vehicle mix for this study was based on CalEEMod default assumptions, where
worker trips are assumed to be comprised of light-duty autos (EMFAC category LDA) and light
duty trucks (EMFAC category LDT1and LDT2). Vendor trips are comprised of delivery and large
15
trucks (EMFAC category MHDT and HHDT) and haul trips, including cement trucks, are
comprised of large trucks (EMFAC category HHDT). Travel distances are based on CalEEMod
default lengths, which are 10.8 miles for worker travel, 7.3 miles for vendor trips and 20 miles for
hauling (soil import/export). Since CalEEMod does not address cement trucks, these were treated
as vendor travel distances. Each trip was assumed to include an idle time of 5 minutes. Emissions
associated with vehicle starts were also included. On road emissions in San Mateo County for
2023-2027 was used in these calculations. Table 3 provides the traffic inputs that were combined
with the EMFAC2021 emission database to compute vehicle emissions.
Table 3. Construction Traffic Data Used for EMFAC2021 Model Runs
CalEEMod Run/Land
Uses and Construction
Phase
Trips by Trip Type
Notes
Total
Worker1
Total
Vendor1
Total
Haul2
Vehicle mix1
50% LDA
25% LDT1
25% LDT2
50% MHDT
50% HHDT 100% HHDT
Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 20.0 CalEEMod default distance with
5-min truck idle time.
Demolition 3,360 - 539
113,595-sf building and 112 tons
pavement demolition. CalEEMod
default worker trips.
Grading 10,062 - 41,375 331,000-cy soil export.
CalEEMod default worker trips.
Building Construction 313,591 141,876 16,800
8,400 concrete round trips.
CalEEMod default worker and
vendor trips.
Paving 3,620 - 267 1,111-cy asphalt paving.
CalEEMod default worker trips.
Building Interior 14,430 - - CalEEMod default worker trips.
1 Based on 2023-2027 EMFAC2021 light-duty vehicle fleet mix for San Mateo County.
2 Includes demolition trips estimated by CalEEMod based on amount of material to be removed. Asphalt trips
estimated based on data provided by the applicant.
Conclusion AIR-2
Average daily emissions were annualized for each year of construction by dividing the annual
construction emissions and dividing those emissions by the number of active workdays during that
year. Table 4 shows the annualized average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10
exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of the project. As indicated in Table 4, predicted
annualized project construction emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance
thresholds during any year of construction.
16
Table 4. Construction Period Emissions
Year ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
Construction Emissions Total (Tons)
2023 0.22 2.19 0.10 0.07
2024 0.64 6.58 0.28 0.21
2025 0.22 2.62 0.13 0.06
2026 2.86 3.34 0.15 0.09
2027 2.35 0.89 0.04 0.02
Average Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day)
2023 - 2027 (954 construction workdays) 13.16 32.74 1.48 0.95
BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 lbs./day 54 lbs./day 82 lbs./day 54 lbs./day
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily
generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include
disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless
properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be
an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
consider these impacts to be less-than-significant if best management practices are implemented
to reduce these emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would implement BAAQMD-recommended
best management practices.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 - Implement General Plan MM AIR-1a
MM AIR-1a
This mitigation requires that individual developments facilitated by the City’s General Plan shall
incorporate the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by BAAQMD:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
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.
All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed 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 [ATCM] Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of
Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
17
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.
Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall
post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance
with applicable regulations
Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AQ-1
The measures above are consistent with BAAQMD-recommended basic control measures for
reducing fugitive particulate matter that are contained in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines. The measures are also consistent with mitigation measure MM AIR-1a found in the
South San Francisco General Plan EIR.
Operational Period Emissions
Operational air emissions from the project would be generated primarily from autos driven by
future employees, six diesel-fired emergency generators, and six cooling towers. Evaporative
emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products (classified as consumer products)
are typical emissions from these types of uses. CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from
operation of the proposed project assuming full build-out.
CalEEMod Inputs
Land Uses
The project land uses were input to CalEEMod as described above for the construction period
modeling.
Model Year
Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control
technology requirements are phased-in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the
model, the higher the emission rates utilized by CalEEMod. The earliest year of full operation
would be 2028 if construction begins in 2023. Emissions associated with build-out later than 2028
would be lower.
Traffic Information
CalEEMod allows the user to enter specific vehicle trip generation rates. Project-specific traffic
trip generation estimates were provided for this assessment.13 The project would produce
approximately 9,972 daily trips. MM TRANS-1 of the General Plan EIR requires the project
13 Email from Rebecca Auld, September 22, 2022.
18
sponsor to implement the City’s TDM Ordinance as part of the Zoning Code Amendments and
parking requirements. The TDM Ordinance requires that a maximum of 50 percent of the project’s
total employees commute alone via car during peak traffic periods. Some of the ways that
compliance with this code can be achieved are to allow employees flexible work hours so that their
commute is during off peak hours, having employees utilize other methods of travel such as public
transit, or encouraging carpooling by reserving parking spaces for carpooling vehicles. This is
predicted to result in a 34-percent reduction in trips14. The daily trip generation was calculated
using the size of the project and the total automobile trips. The Saturday and Sunday trip rates
were adjusted by multiplying the ratio of the CalEEMod default rates for Saturday and Sunday
trips to the default weekday rate with the project-specific daily weekday trip rate. The default trip
lengths and trip types specified by CalEEMod were used.
EMFAC2021 Adjustment
The vehicle emission factors and fleet mix used in CalEEMod are based on EMFAC2017, which
is an older CARB emission inventory for on road and off road mobile sources. Since the release
of CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0, new emission factors have been produced by CARB.
EMFAC2021 became available for use in January 2021. It includes the latest data on California’s
car and truck fleets and travel activity. The CalEEMod vehicle emission factors and fleet mix were
updated with the emission rates and fleet mix from EMFAC2021, which were adjusted with the
CARB EMFAC off-model adjustment factors. On road emission rates from 2028 San Mateo
County were used (See Attachment 3). More details about the updates in emissions calculation
methodologies and data are available in the EMFAC2021 Technical Support Document.15
Energy
GHG emissions modeling includes those indirect emissions from electricity consumption. The
model has a default rate of 0 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity produced, which is based
on Peninsula Clean Energy’s 2019 emissions rate.
Project Generators
The project would include two emergency generators for each building, a base generator and a
tenant generator, for a total of six generators. All three base generators would be 2,800kW
generators powered by a 3,753 horsepower (hp) diesel-fired engine. The tenant generators will be
two 1,000kW generators powered by a 1,341-hp diesel-fired engine and one 600kW generator
powered by a 804-hp diesel-fired engine. These generators would be tested periodically and power
the buildings in the event of a power failure. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that the
generators would be operated primarily for testing and maintenance purposes. CARB and
BAAQMD requirements limit these engine operations to 50 hours each per year of non-emergency
14 The project will be required to implement a TDM program consistent with the revised Chapter 20.400 of the
Municipal Code, and would be required to achieve a maximum of 50 percent of employees commuting via driving
alone. The TDM reduction assumes that 50% of the employees will drive alone and the rest of the employees will
commute via transit, carpool, bike or walk.
15 See CARB 2021: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/road-
documentation/msei-modeling-tools-emfac
19
operation. During testing periods, the engine would typically be run for less than one hour. The
engines would be required to meet CARB and EPA emission standards and consume commercially
available California low-sulfur diesel fuel. The generator emissions were modeled using
CalEEMod. Additionally, the generators would have to meet BAAQMD BACT requirements for
IC Engine-Compression Ignition: Stationary Emergency, non-Agricultural, non-direct drive fire
pump sources. These include emission limits similar to U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards for the engines
larger than 1,000 hp. Four of the six generators are larger than 1,000 hp.
Project Cooling Towers
The project would include two cooling towers to be located on the top of each building for a total
of six cooling towers. Based on information provided by the applicant, each cooling tower would
have a water flow rate of 750 gallons per minute (GPM), using public water with an average total
dissolved solids (TDS) of 96 parts per million (ppm), and a mist eliminator efficiency of 0.001
percent. Details of the cooling tower PM emissions calculations are provided in Attachment 3.
Other Inputs
Default model assumptions for emissions associated with solid waste generation use were applied
to the project. Water/wastewater use were changed to 100% aerobic conditions to represent
wastewater treatment plant conditions since the project site would not send wastewater to septic
tanks or facultative lagoons.
Existing Uses
The existing site is currently developed with two one-story buildings and one two-story building,
totaling 113,595 square feet (sf) of office/R&D (life science) use and associated parking. The
existing uses are predicted to generate 947 daily trips. A CalEEMod run was developed for the
existing use of the site. Additionally, the trip generation information was provided for the existing
use of the site.
Summary of Computed Operational Period Emissions
Annual emissions were predicted using CalEEMod. The daily emissions were calculated assuming
365 days of operation. Table 5 shows average daily emissions of ROG, NOX, total PM10, and total
PM2.5 during operation of the project. The operational period emissions would not exceed the
BAAQMD significance thresholds.
20
Table 5. Operational Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
2028 Project Operational Emissions (tons/year) 6.37 2.47 4.26 1.14
Project Generator Emissions (tons/year) 0.61 0.43 0.02 0.02
Project Cooling Tower Emissions (tons/year) - - <0.01 <0.01
2022 Existing Use Emissions (tons/year) 0.95 0.47 0.61 0.16
Net Total Operational Emissions 6.04 2.43 3.67 0.99
BAAQMD Thresholds (tons /year) 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No
Total (lbs./day) 33.08 13.29 20.11 5.45
BAAQMD Thresholds (lbs./day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs.
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes: 1 Assumes 365-day operation.
Impact AIR-3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Project impacts related to increased community risk can occur either by introducing a new source
of TACs with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity or
by significantly exacerbating existing cumulative TAC impacts. This project would introduce new
sources of TACs during construction (i.e., on-site construction and truck hauling emissions) and
operation (i.e., mobile sources, generators, cooling towers).
MM AIR-1b contained in the General Plan EIR addresses exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs
and air pollution. Under this mitigation measure, projects that may result in TAC emissions that
are located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptors are required to prepare a Health Risk
Assessment (HRA). Based on the results of the HRA, the Project may be required to identify and
implement measures (such as air filtration systems) to reduce potential exposure to particulate
matter, carbon monoxide, diesel fumes, and other potential health hazards. Measures identified in
the HRA are to be included into the site development plan as a component of a proposed project.
There are sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site. Project construction activity
would generate dust and equipment exhaust that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. The
project would include the installation of six emergency generators powered by diesel engines and
six cooling towers, two atop each building. Traffic generated by the project would consist of
mostly light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles, which would produce TAC and air pollutant
emissions in the local area.
Project impacts to existing sensitive receptors were addressed for temporary construction activities
and long-term operational conditions. There are also several sources of existing TACs and
localized air pollutants in the vicinity of the project. The impact of the existing sources of TAC
was also assessed in terms of describing the cumulative risk which includes the project
contribution.
21
Community Risk Methodology
Community risk impacts are addressed by predicting increased lifetime cancer risk, the increase
in annual PM2.5 concentrations, and computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks.
The risk impacts from the project are the combination of risks from construction and operation
sources. These sources include on-site construction activity, construction truck hauling, increased
traffic from the project, and generator and cooling tower operation. To evaluate the increased
cancer risks from the project, a 30-year exposure period was used, per BAAQMD guidance,16 with
the sensitive receptors being exposed to both project construction and operation emissions during
this timeframe.
The project increased cancer risk is computed by summing the project construction cancer risk and
operation cancer risk contributions. Unlike, the increased maximum cancer risk, the annual PM2.5
concentration and HI values are not additive but based on the annual maximum values for the
entirety of the project. The project maximally exposed individual (MEI) is identified as the
sensitive receptor that is most impacted by the project’s construction and operation.
The methodology for computing community risks impacts is contained in Attachment 1. This involved
the calculation of TAC and PM2.5 emissions, dispersion modeling of these emissions, and computations
of cancer risk and non-cancer health effects.
Modeled Sensitive Receptors
Receptors for this assessment included locations where sensitive populations would be present for
extended periods of time (i.e., chronic exposures). This includes the Gateway Child Development
Center YMCA and the existing residences to the west of the site as shown in Figure 1. Residential
receptors are assumed to include all receptor groups (i.e., third trimester, infants, children, and
adults) with almost continuous exposure to project emissions.
Community Health Risk from Project Construction
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is
a known TAC. These exhaust emissions pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as
surrounding residents. The primary community risk impact issues associated with construction
emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5. Diesel exhaust poses both a potential health and
nuisance impact to nearby receptors. A health risk assessment of the project construction activities
was conducted that evaluated potential health effects to nearby sensitive receptors from
construction emissions of DPM and PM2.5.17 This assessment included dispersion modeling to
predict the offsite concentrations resulting from project construction, so that lifetime cancer risks
and non-cancer health effects could be evaluated.
The three identified TAC and annual PM2.5 sources associated with the project once in operation
would be employee trips, infrequent operation of standby generators (assumed to be powered by
16 BAAQMD, 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Guidelines. December
2016.
17 DPM is identified by California as a toxic air contaminant due to the potential to cause cancer.
22
diesel fuel), and cooling towers. Traffic from the project would be made up of mostly gasoline-
powered vehicles.
Construction Emissions
The CalEEMod model and EMFAC2021 emissions provided total annual PM10 exhaust emissions
(assumed to be DPM) for the off-road construction equipment and for exhaust emissions from on-
road vehicles, with total emissions from all construction stages as 0.35 tons (697 pounds). The on-
road emissions are a result of haul truck travel during demolition and grading activities, worker
travel, and vendor deliveries during construction. A trip length of one mile was used to represent
vehicle travel while at or near the construction site. It was assumed that these emissions from on-
road vehicles traveling at or near the site would occur at the construction site. Fugitive PM2.5 dust
emissions were calculated by CalEEMod as 0.43 tons (863 pounds) for the overall construction
period.
Dispersion Modeling
The U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of DPM and PM2.5
concentrations at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project construction area. The AERMOD
dispersion model is a BAAQMD-recommended model for use in modeling analysis of these types
of emission activities for CEQA projects.18 Emission sources for the construction site were
grouped into two categories: exhaust emissions of DPM and fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions.
Construction Sources
Combustion equipment DPM exhaust emissions were modeled as a series of point sources with a
nine-foot release height (construction equipment exhaust stack height) placed at 23 feet (7 meter)
intervals throughout the construction site. This resulted in 467 individual point sources being
used to represent mobile equipment DPM exhaust emissions in the construction area, with DPM
emissions occurring throughout the project construction site. In addition, the following stack
parameters were used: a vertical release, a stack diameter of 2.5 inches, an exhaust temperature
of 918˚F, and an exit velocity of 309 feet per second. Since these are point sources, plume rise is
calculated by the AERMOD dispersion model. Emissions from vehicle travel on- and off-site
were also distributed among the point sources throughout the site. The locations of the point
sources used for the modeling are identified in Figure 1.
For modeling fugitive PM2.5 emissions, a near-ground level release height of 7 feet (2 meters) was
used for the area source. Fugitive dust emissions at construction sites come from a variety of
sources, including truck and equipment travel, grading activities, truck loading (with loaders) and
unloading (rear or bottom dumping), loaders and excavators moving and transferring soil and other
materials, etc. All of these activities result in fugitive dust emissions at various heights at the
point(s) of generation. Once generated, the dust plume will tend to rise as it moves downwind
across the site and exit the site at a higher elevation than when it was generated. For all these
reasons, a 7-foot release height was used as the average release height across the construction site.
18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and
Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May.
23
Emissions from the construction equipment and on-road vehicle travel were distributed throughout
the modeled area sources.
AERMOD Inputs and Meteorological Data
The modeling used a five-year data set (2013 - 2017) of hourly meteorological data from the San
Francisco International Airport was used with the AERMOD model. Construction emissions were
modeled as occurring daily between 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., when the majority of construction
activity is expected to occur. Annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from construction activities
during the 2023-2027 period were calculated using the model. DPM and PM2.5 concentrations were
calculated at nearby sensitive receptors. Receptor heights of 5 feet (1.5 meters) and 15 feet (4.5
meters) were used to represent the breathing height on the first and second floor of nearby
residences.19 A receptor height of 3 feet (1 meter) was used to represent breathing height of
children at the Gateway Child Development Center YMCA.
Summary of Construction Community Risk Impacts
The maximum increased cancer risks were calculated using the modeled TAC concentrations
combined with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance for
age sensitivity factors and exposure parameters as recommended by BAAQMD (see Attachment
1). Non-cancer health hazards and maximum PM2.5 concentrations were also calculated and
identified. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to
cancer causing TACs. Infant, child, and adult exposures were assumed to occur at all residences
during the entire construction period.
The maximum modeled annual PM2.5 concentration was calculated based on combined exhaust and
fugitive concentrations. The maximum computed HI value was based on the ratio of the maximum
DPM concentration modeled and the chronic inhalation refence exposure level of 5 µg/m3.
The maximum modeled annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations, which includes both the DPM and
fugitive PM2.5 concentrations, were identified at nearby sensitive receptors (as shown in Figure 1)
to find the maximally exposed individuals (MEI). Results of this assessment indicated that the
construction residential MEI was located on the first floor (3 feet above ground) of the Gateway
Child Development Center YMCA. Table 5 summarizes the maximum cancer risks, PM2.5
concentrations, and health hazard indexes for project related construction activities affecting the
construction MEI. Attachment 4 to this report includes the emission calculations used for the
construction area source modeling and the cancer risk calculations.
19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local
Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en
24
Figure 1. Location of Project Construction Site, Project Point Sources, Project
Generator, Project Cooling Towers, Project Trips Model, Off-Site Sensitive
Receptors, and Maximum TAC Impact
Community Risks from Project Operation
Operation of the project would have long-term emissions from mobile sources (i.e., traffic),
emergency generators, and cooling towers. While these emissions would not be as intensive at or
near the site as construction activity, they would contribute to long-term effects to sensitive
receptors.
Project Traffic
Diesel powered vehicles are the primary concern with local traffic-generated TAC impacts. This
project would generate a net of 5,635 daily trips20 with a majority of the trips being from light-
duty gasoline-powered vehicles (i.e., passenger cars). The project is not anticipated to generate
large amounts of truck trips that would involve diesel vehicles. These trips were modeled to occur
on Dubuque Avenue. This analysis involved the development of DPM, organic TACs, and PM2.5
20 Email from Rebecca Auld, September 22, 2022.
25
emissions for project trips on Dubuque Avenue using the Caltrans version of the CARB
EMFAC2017 emissions model, known as CT-EMFAC2017. CT-EMFAC2017 provides aggregate
emission factors in for dispersion modeling of mobile source criteria pollutants and TACs,
including DPM. Emission processes modeled include running exhaust for DPM, PM2.5 and total
organic compounds (TOG), running evaporative losses for TOG, and tire and brake wear and
fugitive road dust for PM2.5. DPM emissions are projected to decrease in the future and are
reflected in the CT-EMFAC2017 emissions data. Inputs to the model include region (San Mateo
County), type of road (major/collector), year of analysis (2028 – operational year), local truck mix
for San Mateo County (3.13 percent) 21, and season (annual).
For all hours of the day, an average speed of 30 mph on Dubuque Avenue was assumed for all
vehicles based on posted speed limit signs on the roadways. Dispersion modeling of TAC and
PM2.5 emissions was conducted using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model, which is
recommended by the BAAQMD for this type of analysis.22 TAC and PM2.5 emissions from project
trips within about 1,000 feet of the project site were evaluated with the model. Emissions from
project trips were modeled in AERMOD using a series of volume sources along a line (line volume
sources), with line segments used to represent opposing travel lanes on Dubuque Avenue. The
same meteorological data and off-site sensitive receptors used in the previous construction
dispersion modeling were used in the roadway modeling. Other inputs to the model included road
geometry, hourly traffic emissions, and receptor locations and heights. Annual TAC and PM2.5
concentrations for 2021 on the haul route were calculated using the model. Concentrations were
calculated at the project MEI.
Project Generators
As discussed above in the Operational Period Emissions section, the project would include six
generators. Operation of a diesel generator would be a source of TAC emissions. The generators
would be operated for testing and maintenance purposes, with a maximum of 50 hours per year of
non-emergency operation under normal conditions. During testing periods, the engine would
typically be run for less than one hour under light engine loads. The generator engines would be
required to meet EPA emission standards and consume commercially available low sulfur diesel
fuel. Additionally, the generators would have to meet BAAQMD BACT requirements for IC
Engine-Compression Ignition: Stationary Emergency, non-Agricultural, non-direct drive fire
pump sources. Based on the size of the proposed generator, these include emission limits similar
to U.S. EPA Tier 4 engines. The emissions from the operation of the generators were calculated
using the CalEEMod model.
These diesel engines would be subject to CARB’s Stationary Diesel Airborne Toxics Control
Measure (ATCM) and require permits from the BAAQMD, since it will be equipped with an
engine larger than 50-HP. BACT requirements would apply to these generators that would limit
DPM emissions. As part of the BAAQMD permit requirements for toxics screening analysis, the
engine emissions will have to meet Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (BACT) and
21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local
Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en
22 BAAQMD. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May 2012
26
pass the toxic risk screening level of less than ten in a million. The risk assessment would be
prepared by BAAQMD. Depending on results, BAAQMD would set limits for DPM emissions
(e.g., more restricted engine operation periods). Sources of air pollutant emissions complying with
all applicable BAAQMD regulations generally will not be considered to have a significant air
quality community risk impact.
To obtain an estimate of potential cancer risks and PM2.5 impacts from operation of the emergency
generators at the project MEI, the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to calculate the
maximum annual DPM concentration at off-site sensitive receptor locations (nearby
childcare/school and residences). The same receptors, breathing heights, and BAAQMD San
Francisco International Airport meteorological data used in the construction dispersion modeling
were used for the generator models. Stack parameters for modeling the generators were based on
BAAQMD default parameters (i.e., exhaust gas flowrate, stack diameter, stack height, and exhaust
gas temperature) for stand-by diesel generators.23 Annual average DPM and PM2.5 concentrations
were modeled assuming that generator testing could occur at any time of the day (24 hours per
day, 365 days per year).
Project Cooling Towers
The project would include two cooling towers on the roof of each building for a total of six cooling
towers. Particulate matter emissions from evaporative cooling can occur and are a result of
evaporation of liquid water entrained in the discharge air stream and carried out of the tower as
“drift” droplets that contain dissolved solids in the water. Drift droplets that evaporate can produce
small particulate matter (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) emissions. These emissions are generated when the
drift droplets evaporate and leave the particulate matter formed by crystallization of dissolved
solids. The cooling towers are not a source of combustion emissions that may contain TACs.
For the health risk assessment, the PM2.5 emissions from evaporative cooling were calculated
based on a worst-case assumptions including use of evaporative cooling for 100 percent of the
time, a water flow rate of 750 gallons per minute (gpm), use of 0.001 percent drift eliminators, a
total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of 96 parts per million (ppm) in the recirculating
water.24 Based on a calculated total drift rate, recirculating water TDS concentration of 96 ppm,
and PM fractions based on SCAQMD,25 the PM2.5 emissions were calculated as 0.0007 tons per
year per cooling tower.
To obtain an estimate of potential PM2.5 concentrations from operation of the cooling towers, the
U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to calculate the annual PM2.5 concentration at
23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco Department of Public Health, and San Francisco
Planning Department, 2012. The San Francisco Community Risk Reduction Plan: Technical Support Document,
BAAQMD, December. Web:
https://www.gsweventcenter.com/Appeal_Response_References/2012_1201_BAAQMD.pdf
24 Recirculating water flow rate and maximum TDS concentration based on South San Francisco 2021 Water
Quality Report TDS Range Max. URL: https://www.calwater.com/ccrs/bay-ssf-2021/
25 South Coast AQMD, Final-Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 Significance
Thresholds, Appendix A. October 2006. Web: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-
significance-thresholds/particulate-matter-(pm)-2.5-significance-thresholds-and-calculation-
methodology/final_pm2_5methodology.pdf
27
off-site sensitive receptor locations. The same receptors, breathing heights, and BAAQMD San
Francisco International Airport meteorological data used in the construction dispersion modeling
were used for the cooling tower models. Volume source parameters for modeling the cooling tower
were based on project-specific cooling tower parameters (i.e., length of side, release height,
emission rate (flow rate, TDS, mist eliminator efficiency)). Annual PM2.5 concentrations were
modeled assuming that cooling tower would operate at any time of the day (24 hours per day, 365
days per year).
The annual PM2.5 concentration were based on an annual maximum risk. Table 6 lists the
community risks from cooling towers at the location of childcare MEI and residential maximum
receptor. The particulate matter emissions for the proposed cooling towers are included in
Attachment 5.
Project Laboratories
This type of project may include research and manufacturing type laboratories. Since a specific
user or type of lab use is not known at this time, it is not possible to predict whether there would
be any TAC emissions and if so the quantities that would be emitted. Typically, laboratory uses
have fume hoods and would employ appropriate exhaust systems to control any emission of air
pollutants. Emissions of air pollutants or TACs are subject to BAAQMD permitting requirements
that would require the District to apply all applicable rules and regulations to limit or control these
emissions. Regulation 2, Rule 1: General Requirements, and Regulation 2, Rule 5: New Source
Review of Toxic Air Contaminants would apply to any potential emissions from these sources.
The District’s risk policy is to not issue a permit to any source that would cause a cancer risk of
greater than 10 chances per million.
Summary of Project-Related Community Risks at the Offsite Project MEI
The cumulative risk impacts from a project are the combination of construction and operation
sources. For this project, these sources include the on-site construction activity, generators,
cooling towers, and operational vehicle trips. The project impact is computed by adding the
construction cancer risk for an infant to the increased cancer risk for the project operational
conditions for the generator and vehicle trips at the MEI over a 30-year period. The project MEI
is identified as the sensitive receptor that is most impacted by the project’s construction and
operation.
For this project, the sensitive receptor identified in Figure 1 as the construction MEI is also the
project MEI. At this location, the MEI would be exposed to 4 years of construction cancer risks
and 26 years of operational cancer risks. Unlike the increased maximum cancer risk, the annual
PM2.5 concentration and HI risks are not additive but based on an annual maximum risk for the
entirety of the project.
Project risk impacts are shown in Table 6. The unmitigated maximum cancer risks, annual PM2.5
concentration, and Hazard Index from construction activities at the residential project MEI
location would not exceed the single-source significance thresholds.
28
Table 6. Construction Risk Impacts at the Off-site MEI
Source Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Construction (Years 0 – 4) Unmitigated
Mitigated
11.03
2.12
0.05
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
Project Generators (Years 4 – 30) 0.38 <0.01 <0.01
Project Cooling Towers (Years 4 – 30) - <0.01 -
Project Operational Trips (Years 4 – 30) 0.05 <0.01 <0.01
Total/Maximum Project Impacts (Years 0 – 30) Unmitigated
Mitigated
11.46
2.15
0.05
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 6.01 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
1 Project site and receptors are located in an overburdened community as defined by BAAQMD.
Note: Risks in this are reported for the maximally exposed individual (MEI), factoring in age-sensitivity at all
receptors, and represent increased lifetime risk. See Attachment A for additional details.
Cumulative Community Risks of all TAC Sources at the Offsite Project MEI
Community health risk assessments typically look at all substantial sources of TACs that can affect
sensitive receptors that are located within 1,000 feet of a project site (i.e., influence area). These
sources include rail lines, highways, busy surface streets, and stationary sources identified by
BAAQMD.
A review of the project area based on provided traffic information indicated that traffic on U.S.
Highway 101, Airport Boulevard, and Dubuque Avenue would exceed 10,000 vehicles per day.
Other nearby streets would have less than 10,000 vehicles per day. A review of BAAQMD’s
highway and railway raster data identified from one railway with the potential to affect the
project MEI. A review of BAAQMD’s stationary source map website identified eleven
stationary sources with the potential to affect the project MEI. Figure 2 shows the location of the
sources affecting the MEI. Community risk impacts these sources upon the MEI are reported in
Table 7. Details of the modeling and community risk calculations are included in Attachment 5.
29
Figure 2. Project Site and Nearby TAC and PM2.5 Sources
Highways & Railways – U.S. Highway 101, CalTrain Zone 1
The project MEI is approximately 75 feet southeast of U.S. Highway 101 and CalTrain Zone 1
borders the project on the southeast side. A refined analysis of the impacts of TACs and PM2.5 to
the MEI receptor is necessary to evaluate potential cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations from
Highway 101. A review of the traffic information reported by Caltrans indicates that Highway 101
traffic includes 184,000 vehicles per day (based on an annual average)26 that are about 5.1 percent
trucks, of which 1.5 percent are considered diesel heavy duty trucks and 3.7 percent are medium
duty trucks.27
Local Roadways – Airport Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue
A refined analysis of potential health impacts from vehicle traffic on Airport Boulevard and
Dubuque Avenue was conducted. The refined analysis involved predicting emissions for the traffic
volume and mix of vehicle types on the roadway near the project site and using an atmospheric
dispersion model to predict exposure to TACs. The associated cancer risks are then computed
26 Caltrans. 2022. 2020 Traffic Volumes California State Highways.
27 Caltrans. 2022. 2020 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System.
30
based on the modeled exposures. Attachment 1 includes a description of how community risk
impacts, including cancer risk are computed.
Traffic Emissions Modeling
This analysis involved the development of DPM, organic TACs, and PM2.5 emissions for traffic
on Highway 101, Airport Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue using the Caltrans version of the
CARB EMFAC2017 emissions model, known as CT-EMFAC2017. CT-EMFAC2017 provides
emission factors for mobile source criteria pollutants and TACs, including DPM. 28 Emission
processes modeled include running exhaust for DPM, PM2.5 and total organic compounds
(TOG), running evaporative losses for TOG, and tire and brake wear and fugitive road dust for
PM2.5. All PM2.5 emissions from all vehicles were used, rather than just the PM2.5 fraction from
diesel powered vehicles, because all vehicle types (i.e., gasoline and diesel powered) produce
PM2.5. Additionally, PM2.5 emissions from vehicle tire and brake wear from re-entrained
roadway dust were included in these emissions. DPM emissions are projected to decrease in the
future and are reflected in the CT-EMFAC2017 emissions data. Inputs to the model include
region (San Mateo County), type of road (freeway and major/collector), traffic mix assigned by
CT-EMFAC2017 for the county, adjusted for the local truck mix on Highway 101 and truck
percentage for non-state highways in San Mateo County (3.13 percent)29 for the local roadways,
year of analysis (2023 – construction start year), and season (annual).
To estimate TAC and PM2.5 emissions over the 30-year exposure period used for calculating the
increased cancer risks for sensitive receptors at the MEI, the CT-EMFAC2017 model was used
to develop vehicle emission factors for the year 2023 (construction start year). Emissions
associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control
technology requirements are phased-in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the
model, the higher the emission rates utilized by CT-EMFAC2017. Year 2023 emissions were
conservatively assumed as being representative of future conditions over the time period that
cancer risks are evaluated since, as discussed above, overall vehicle emissions, and in particular
diesel truck emissions, will decrease in the future.
The ADT volumes and truck percentages were based on Caltrans data for Highway 101. Traffic
volumes were assumed to increase 1 percent per year for a total of 189,520 vehicles. Hourly
traffic distributions specific to these segments of Highway 101 were obtained from Caltrans
Performance Measurement System (PeMS). PeMS data is collected in real-time from nearly
40,000 individual detectors spanning the freeway system across all major metropolitan areas of
California.30 The fraction of traffic volume each hour was calculated and applied to the 2023
average daily traffic volumes estimate to estimate hourly traffic emission rates for Highway 101.
28 The CT-EMFAC2017 version was used in the analysis because Caltrans has not yet release a CT-EMFAC version
with the updated EMFAC2021 emissions that would provide TAC emission rates.
29 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local
Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en
30 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/mpr/pems-source
31
Based on traffic data from the Caltrans PeMS, traffic speeds during the daytime and nighttime
periods were identified. For northbound traffic, the following was assumed for all vehicles:
- 70 mph – All hours of the day except 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.
- 65 mph – From 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.
For southbound traffic, the following was assumed for all vehicles:
- 65 mph – All hours of the day except 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.
- 60 mph – From 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.
The ADT for each local roadway was calculated based on traffic data provided by the project’s
traffic consultant.31 Assuming a 1 percent per year increase, the predicted ADT on Airport
Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue was 22,392 and 18,650 vehicles, respectively. Average hourly
traffic distributions for San Mateo County roadways were developed using the EMFAC model,32
which were then applied to the ADT volumes to obtain estimated hourly traffic volumes and
emissions for each roadway. An average travel speed of 35 mph for traffic on Airport Boulevard
and 30 mph on Dubuque Avenue was used for all hours of the day based on posted speed limit
signs on each roadway.
This analysis involved the development of DPM, organic TACs, and PM2.5 emissions for future
traffic on Highway 101 and each local roadway and using these emissions with an air quality
dispersion model to calculate TAC and PM2.5 concentrations at the project MEI receptor
locations. Maximum increased lifetime cancer risks and annual PM2.5 concentrations for the
receptors were then computed using modeled TAC and PM2.5 concentrations and BAAQMD
methods and exposure parameters described in Attachment 1.
Rail Line Community Risk Impacts
The project site is located near the Caltrain rail lines, about 120 feet east of the site. Rail activity
on these lines currently generates TAC and PM2.5 emissions from locomotive exhaust. These rail
lines are used primarily for Caltrain passenger service; however, there is some freight service by
trains using diesel-fueled locomotives. Based on the current Caltrain schedule effective September
12, 2022 there are 104 trains that pass the project site during weekdays and 32 on weekends. In
addition to the passenger trains there are about four freight trains that use the rail lines on a daily
basis.33
Currently all of Caltrain’s trains use diesel locomotives. The Peninsula Corridor Electrification
Project is a key component of the Caltrain Modernization Program that would electrify the Caltrain
Corridor from San Francisco to the Tamien Caltrain station in San José. As part of the program to
31 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. File: Figure 1 Existing Traffic Volumes.pdf
32 The Burden output from EMFAC2007, a previous version of CARB’s EMFAC model, was used for this since the
current web-based version of EMFAC2021 does not include Burden type output with hour by hour traffic volume
information.
33 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form for
Crossing 922739G. Revision Date 1/28/2022.
32
modernize operation of the Caltrain rail corridor between San José and San Francisco, Caltrain is
planning to phase in the change from using diesel locomotives to use of electric trains.34 This plan
was formally adopted on January 8, 201535 and electrified service is anticipated to begin in late
2024.36
Caltrain plans are that initial service between San José and San Francisco would use a mixed fleet
of electric and diesel locomotives, with approximately 75 percent of the service being electric and
25 percent being diesel. After the initial implementation period, diesel locomotives would be
replaced with electric trains over time as they reach the end of their service life. Caltrain’s diesel-
powered locomotives would continue to be used to provide service between the San José Diridon
Station and Gilroy. It is expected that all of the San José to San Francisco fleet would be electric
trains about five to eight years after initial electric service begins.37
Starting in late 2024 with Caltrain electrification, there would be 24 daily weekday trips and 4
daily weekend trips using trains with diesel locomotives38. On an annual average basis this would
be an average of 18 daily trains using diesel locomotives. Use of these diesel trains by Caltrain
between San Francisco and San Jose would be phased out over time and replaced by electric trains.
All trains used for freight service were assumed to use diesel powered locomotives.
Rail Line Emissions
For this evaluation the rail exposure period was assumed to begin in 2023, coincident with the
beginning of project construction. In calculating cancer risks from DPM emissions from rail line
diesel locomotives a 5-year exposure period was used as this is the maximum length of time a
child would be at the location of the construction MEI (YMCA Gateway Child Development
Center). In this case, the exposure period at the construction MEI would be from 2023 through
2027.
For calculating emissions from Caltrain locomotives it was assumed that during the 2023 and 2024
construction period all trains would continue to use diesel locomotives. Along the rail line near
the project site there would be an average of 83 daily trains using diesel locomotives on an annual
average basis. Starting in 2025 when Caltrain electrification occurs there would be 24 daily
weekday trips and 4 daily weekend trips using trains with diesel locomotives39. On an annual
average basis there would be a total of 18 daily trains using diesel locomotives. Although these
diesel locomotives would be replaced over time with electric locomotives, it was conservatively
assumed for this evaluation that diesel emissions would remain at the 2025 levels in the future. All
trains used for freight service were assumed to use diesel powered locomotives. In the vicinity of
the project site all trains were assumed to be traveling at an average speed 40 mph.
34 Caltrain, 2014. Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project. Final Environmental Impact Report. December 2014.
35 Caltrain, 2015. Peninsula Corridor Electrification Fact Sheet. May 2015.
36 Caltrain, 2021. Caltrain Electrification Delayed to 2024. June 3, 2021. See:
www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Electrification_Delayed_to_2024.html
37 Caltrain 2015. Short Range Transit Plan:FY2015-2024. October 1, 2015.
38 Caltrain 2015. Short Range Transit Plan:FY2015-2024. October 1, 2015.
39 Caltrain 2015. Short Range Transit Plan:FY2015-2024. October 1, 2015.
33
DPM and PM2.5 emissions from trains on the rail line were calculated using EPA emission factors
for locomotives40 and CARB adjustment factors to account for fuels used in California41. Caltrain’s
current locomotive fleet consists of twenty-three 3,200 horsepower (hp) locomotives of model year
or overhaul date of 1999 or later, three 3,200 hp locomotives of model year 1998, and six 3,600
hp locomotives of model year 2003.42 The current fleet average locomotive engine size is about
3,285 hp. In estimating diesel emissions for 2023 and 2024 prior to electrification a fleet average
locomotive engine size of 3,285 hp was used. When electrification occurs, Caltrain will initially
retain the six 3,600 hp locomotives and the three model year 1998 3,200 hp locomotives43. In
estimating diesel locomotive emissions for the case of electrification, an average locomotive
horsepower of 3,467 hp was used. Emissions from the freight trains were calculated assuming
they would use two diesel locomotives with 2,300 hp engines (total of 4,600 hp) and would be
traveling at 40 mph. Since the exposure duration used in calculating child cancer risks at the MEI
location is 5 years, the passenger and freight train average DPM and PM2.5 emissions were
calculated based on average EPA emission factors for the periods 2023-2024 and 2025-2027.
Dispersion Modeling
Dispersion modeling of TAC and PM2.5 emissions was conducted using the U.S. EPA AERMOD
dispersion model, which is recommended by the BAAQMD for this type of analysis.44 TAC and
PM2.5 emissions from traffic on the roadways within about 1,000 feet of the project site were
evaluated with the model. Emissions from vehicle traffic and locomotives were modeled in
AERMOD using a series of volume sources along a line (line volume sources), with line
segments used to represent the travel lanes on the roadways and railways. The same
meteorological data and off-site sensitive receptors used in the previous construction dispersion
modeling were used in the highway, roadway, and railway modeling. Other inputs to the model
included road geometry, hourly traffic emissions, and receptor locations and heights. Annual
TAC and PM2.5 concentrations for 2023 from traffic on the roadways were calculated using the
model. Concentrations were calculated at the project MEIs with receptor heights of 3 feet (1
meter) to represent the breathing heights of children on the first floor of the nearby school.
Figure 2 shows the roadway and railway segments modeled and residential MEI receptor
location used in the modeling. Table 6 lists the risks and hazards from the roadway. The
emission rates and roadway calculations used in the analysis are shown in Attachment 5.
BAAQMD Permitted Stationary Sources
Permitted stationary sources of air pollution near the project site were identified using BAAQMD’s
Permitted Stationary Sources 2020 GIS website,45 which identifies the location of nearby
stationary sources and their estimated risk and hazard impacts, including emissions and
adjustments to account for new OEHHA guidance. Eleven sources were identified using this tool,
40 Emission Factors for Locomotives, USEPA 2009 (EPA-420-F-09-025)
41 Offroad Modeling, Change Technical Memo, Changes to the Locomotive Inventory, CARB July 2006.
42 Caltrain Commute Fleets. Available at: http://www.caltrain.com/about/statsandreports.html. Accessed January 4, 2022.
43 Caltrain 2015. Short Range Transit Plan:FY2015-2024. October 1, 2015.
44 BAAQMD. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May 2012
45 BAAQMD,
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65
34
seven are generators, one is a gasoline dispensing facility, and two have no data and were treated
as a “generic case” for worst-case risk screening purposes. One source was identified as part of the
existing site and would be demolished during construction. A Stationary Source Information Form
(SSIF) containing the identified sources was prepared and submitted to BAAQMD. BAAQMD
provided input and clarification about the stationary sources. The screening level risks and hazards
provided by BAAQMD for the stationary sources were adjusted for distance using BAAQMD’s
Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool for Diesel Internal Combustion Engines, Gasoline
Dispensing Facility, and Generic Equipment. Community risk impacts from the stationary source
upon the MEI are reported in Table 7.
Nearby Construction Projects
The City has entitled two nearby development projects that could conceivably be active
consecutively with the proposed Project46. These include the 915 Airport Boulevard project that
would construct a 5-story hotel with 115 rooms about 350 feet north of the proposed Project. The
other project is located at 651 Gateway Boulevard about 800 feet southeast of the proposed Project
that would renovate the exterior of the existing building. Neither project is downwind of the project
site; therefore, dispersion conditions that would transport pollutants of contaminants to the Project
site or the project MEI generally would not occur. Furthermore, both Projects are conditioned
(through mitigation) to control emissions from construction activities to reduce nearby
construction health risk impacts. There are other entitled developments in the area, but they are
outside of this project’s 1,000-foot influence area.
Conclusion AIR-3
Table 7 reports both the project and cumulative community risk impacts at the sensitive receptors
most affected by construction (i.e. the MEI). The project would have an exceedance with respect
to community risk caused by project construction activities since the cancer risk exceeds the
BAAQMD single-source thresholds. However, with the implementation of MM AIR-1a and MM
AIR-1b, the cancer risk would be reduced below the BAAQMD single-source threshold. Annual
PM2.5 concentration, and hazard index do not exceed the BAAQMD single-source and cumulative-
source thresholds.
46 South San Francisco Development and Construction Map. 2022. See https://construction.ssf.net/# accessed
November 3, 2022.
35
Table 7. Impacts from Combined Sources at Project MEI
Source Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Impacts
Total/Maximum Project Impacts (Years 0 – 30) Unmitigated
Mitigated
11.46
2.15
0.05
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 6.0 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Cumulative Impacts
Highway 101 2.29 0.12 <0.01
CalTrain Zone 1 4.50 <0.01 <0.01
Airport Boulevard 0.15 0.01 <0.01
Dubuque Avenue 0.16 0.02 <0.01
Genentech, Inc. (Facility ID #16024, Generator), MEI at 200
feet 0.80 <0.01 <0.01
Boston Properties (Facility ID #14010, Generator), MEI at 150
feet 3.52 <0.01 <0.01
Biotech Gateway – HCP c/o CBRE (Facility ID #20236,
Generator), MEI at 950 feet 0.07 <0.01 <0.01
MacroGenics West, Inc (Facility ID #19179, Generator), MEI at
850 feet 2.38 <0.01 <0.01
Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc (Facility ID #17584,
Generator), MEI at 530 feet 1.75 <0.01 <0.01
Lowes HIW Inc (Facility ID #18401, Generator), MEI at 1000+
feet 0.38 <0.01 <0.01
Health Plan of San Mateo (Facility ID #23311, Generator) MEI
at 1000+ feet 0.06 <0.01 <0.01
611 Gateway Center LP (Facility ID #24794, No Data), MEI at
320 feet 1.23 0.22 <0.01
601 & 651 Gateway Boulevard (Facility ID #24795, No Data),
MEI at 630 feet 5.49 0.09 0.01
Airport Boulevard Shell (Facility ID #111170_1, Gas
Dispensing Facility), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.29 <0.01 <0.01
Cumulative Total Unmitigated
Mitigated
34.53
25.22
<0.60
<0.57
<0.15
<0.15
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated
No
No
No
No
No
No
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 - Implement General Plan MM AIR-1a (see above)
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 - Implement General Plan MM AIR-1b
MM AIR-1b
The Project is located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, therefore, a health risk assessment
of project emissions was conducted. Cancer risk thresholds would be exceeded at the Gateway
Child Development Center YMCA (i.e., school children). Additional measures to reduce
construction period TAC emissions are required under MM AIR-1b. The Project would be
required to implement a feasible plan to reduce DPM emissions by at least 50 percent such that
36
increased cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations from construction would be reduced below
TAC significance levels as follows:
1. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two
continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for PM
(PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise,
a. If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available, alternatively use equipment that meets
U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter
emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control
devices that altogether achieve at least a 50 percent reduction in particulate matter
exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment; alternatively (or in
combination).
b. Use of electrical or non-diesel fueled equipment.
2. Dewatering pumps shall be powered by electricity.
3. Use of electric portable equipment following the site preparation and grading phases.
4. Alternatively, the applicant may develop another construction operations plan
demonstrating that the construction equipment used on-site would achieve a reduction in
construction diesel particulate matter emissions by 50 percent or greater. Elements of the
plan could include a combination of some of the following measures:
• Implementation of No. 1 above to use Tier 4 or alternatively fueled equipment,
• Installation of electric power lines during early construction phases to avoid use of
diesel generators and compressors,
• Use of electrically-powered equipment,
• Forklifts and aerial lifts used for exterior and interior building construction shall be
electric or propane/natural gas powered,
• Change in construction build-out plans to lengthen phases, and
• Implementation of different building techniques that result in less diesel equipment
usage.
Such a construction operations plan would be subject to review by an air quality expert and
approved by the City prior to construction.
Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2 (MM AIR-1a and MM AIR-1b)
CalEEMod was used to compute emissions associated with this mitigation measure assuming that
all equipment met U.S. EPA Tier 4 Interim engine standards. With these implemented, the
project’s construction cancer risk levels (assuming infant exposure) would be reduced by 81
percent to 2.12 chances per million. Assuming a lesser level of mitigation that achieves a 50-
percent reduction in the project’s cancer risk, increased cancer risks would be reduced to below 6
37
chances per million. As a result, the project’s construction risks would be reduced below the
BAAQMD single-source thresholds.
38
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Setting
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon,
known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. The most
common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor but there are also several others, most
importantly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons
(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a
variety of natural processes and human activities. Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:
CO2, CH4, and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion.
N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops.
CH4 is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping
livestock) and landfill operations.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning
solvents but their production has been stopped by international treaty.
HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling.
PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride emissions are commonly created by industries such as
aluminum production and semi-conductor manufacturing.
Each GHG has its own potency and effect upon the earth’s energy balance. This is expressed in
terms of a global warming potential (GWP), with CO2 being assigned a value of 1 and sulfur
hexafluoride being several orders of magnitude stronger. In GHG emission inventories, the weight
of each gas is multiplied by its GWP and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e).
An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global climate change is
currently affecting changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical
reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate
and several naturally occurring resources within California are adversely affected by the global
warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise will increase coastal flooding, saltwater
intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species
could also occur. Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human
health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive
diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and
increased levels of air pollution.
Federal and Statewide GHG Emissions
The U.S. EPA reported that in 2022, total gross nationwide GHG emissions were 5,215.6 million
metric tons (MMT) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).47 These emissions were lower than peak
levels of 7,416 MMT that were emitted in 2007. CARB updates the statewide GHG emission
47 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2022. Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks 1990-2020. February. Web: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-
sinks
39
inventory on an annual basis where the latest inventory includes 2000 through 2019 emissions.48
In 2019, GHG emissions from statewide emitting activities were 418.2 MMT CO2e. The 2019
emissions have decreased by 30 percent since peak levels in 2007 and are 7.2 MMT CO2e lower
than 2018 emissions level and almost 13 MMT CO2e below the State’s 2020 GHG limit of 431
MMT CO2e. Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.0 MT
CO2e per person to 10.5 MT CO2e per person in 2019.
Recent Regulatory Actions for GHG Emissions
Executive Order S-3-05 – California GHG Reduction Targets
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 to set GHG
emission reduction targets for California. The three targets established by this EO are as follows:
(1) reduce California’s GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, (2) reduce California’s GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and (3) reduce California’s GHG emissions by 80 percent below
1990 levels by 2050.
Assembly Bill 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006)
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, codified the State’s GHG
emissions target by directing CARB to reduce the State’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020. AB 32 was signed and passed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 27,
2006. Since that time, the CARB, CEC, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and
Building Standards Commission have all been developing regulations that will help meet the goals
of AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, which has a target of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent
below 1990 levels.
A Scoping Plan for AB 32 was adopted by CARB in December 2008. It contains the State’s main
strategies to reduce GHGs from business-as-usual emissions projected in 2020 back down to 1990
levels. Business-as-usual (BAU) is the projected emissions in 2020, including increases in
emissions caused by growth, without any GHG reduction measures. The Scoping Plan has a range
of GHG reduction actions, including direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms,
monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as
a cap-and-trade system.
As directed by AB 32, CARB has also approved a statewide GHG emissions limit. On December
6, 2007, CARB staff resolved an amount of 427 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e as the total
statewide GHG 1990 emissions level and 2020 emissions limit. The limit is a cumulative statewide
limit, not a sector- or facility-specific limit. CARB updated the future 2020 BAU annual emissions
forecast, in light of the economic downturn, to 545 MMT of CO2e. Two GHG emissions reduction
measures currently enacted that were not previously included in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline
inventory were included, further reducing the baseline inventory to 507 MMT of CO2e. Thus, an
estimated reduction of 80 MMT of CO2e is necessary to reduce statewide emissions to meet the
AB 32 target by 2020.
48 CARB. 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emission for 2000 to 2019. Web:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf
40
Executive Order B-30-15 & Senate Bill 32 GHG Reduction Targets – 2030 GHG Reduction Target
In April 2015, Governor Brown signed EO B-30-15, which extended the goals of AB 32, setting
a GHG emissions target at 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. On September 8, 2016, Governor
Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which legislatively established the GHG reduction target of 40
percent of 1990 levels by 2030. In November 2017, CARB issued California’s 2017 Climate
Change Scoping Plan. 49 While the State is on track to exceed the AB 32 scoping plan 2020 targets,
this plan is an update to reflect the enacted SB 32 reduction target.
SB 32 was passed in 2016, which codified a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent
below 1990 levels. CARB has drafted a 2022 Scoping Plan Update to reflect the 2030 target set
by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The 2022 draft plan:
Identifies a path to keep California on track to meet its SB 32 GHG reduction target of at
least 40 percent below 1990 emissions by 2030.
Identifies a technologically feasible, cost-effective path to achieve carbon neutrality by
2045 or earlier.
Focuses on strategies for reducing California’s dependency on petroleum to provide
consumers with clean energy options that address climate change, improve air quality, and
support economic growth and clean sector jobs.
Integrates equity and protecting California’s most impacted communities as a driving
principle.
Incorporates the contribution of natural and working lands to the state’s GHG emissions,
as well as its role in achieving carbon neutrality.
Relies on the most up to date science, including the need to deploy all viable tools,
including carbon capture and sequestration as well a direct air capture.
Evaluates multiple options for achieving our GHG and carbon neutrality targets, as well as
the public health benefits and economic impacts associated with each.
The draft Scoping Plan Update was published on May 10, 2022 and, once final, will lay out how
the state can get to carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. It is also the first Scoping Plan that adds
carbon neutrality as a science-based guide and touchstone beyond statutorily established emission
reduction targets.50
The mid-term 2030 target is considered critical by CARB on the path to obtaining an even deeper
GHG emissions target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as directed in Executive Order S-
3-05. The 2022 Draft Scoping Plan outlines the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning
efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure, providing a blueprint to continue
driving down GHG emissions and to not only obtain the statewide goals, but cost-effectively
achieve carbon-neutrality by 2045 or earlier. In the draft 2022 Scoping Plan, CARB recommends:
49 California Air Resource Board, 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for
Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Targets. November. Web:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf
50 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents
41
VMT per capita reduced 12% below 2019 levels by 2030 and 22% below 2019 levels by
2045.
100% of Light-duty vehicle sales are zero emissions vehicles (ZEV) by 2035.
100% of medium duty/heavy duty vehicle sales are ZEV by 2040.
100% of passenger and other locomotive sales are ZEV by 2030.
100% of line haul locomotive sales are ZEV by 2035.
All electric appliances in new residential and commercial building beginning 2026
(residential) and 2029 (commercial).
80% of residential appliance sales are electric by 2030 and 100% of residential appliance
sales are electric by 2035.
80% of commercial appliance sales are electric by 2030 and 100% of commercial appliance
sales are electric by 2045.
Executive Order B-55-18 – Carbon Neutrality
In 2018, a new statewide goal was established to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but
no later than 2045, and to maintain net negative emissions thereafter. CARB and other relevant
state agencies are tasked with establishing sequestration targets and create policies/programs that
would meet this goal.
Senate Bill 375 – California's Regional Transportation and Land Use Planning Efforts (2008)
California enacted legislation (SB 375) to expand the efforts of AB 32 by controlling indirect GHG
emissions caused by urban sprawl. SB 375 provides incentives for local governments and
applicants to implement new conscientiously planned growth patterns. This includes incentives for
creating attractive, walkable, and sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities.
The legislation also allows applicants to bypass certain environmental reviews under CEQA if they
build projects consistent with the new sustainable community strategies. Development of more
alternative transportation options that would reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, along with
traffic congestion, would be encouraged. SB 375 enhances CARB’s ability to reach the AB 32
goals by directing the agency in developing regional GHG emission reduction targets to be
achieved from the transportation sector for 2020 and 2035. CARB works with the metropolitan
planning organizations (e.g. Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG] and Metropolitan
Transportation Commission [MTC]) to align their regional transportation, housing, and land use
plans to reduce vehicle miles traveled and demonstrate the region's ability to attain its GHG
reduction targets. A similar process is used to reduce transportation emissions of ozone precursor
pollutants in the Bay Area.
Senate Bill 350 - Renewable Portfolio Standards
In September 2015, the California Legislature passed SB 350, which increases the states
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) for content of electrical generation from the 33 percent
target for 2020 to a 50 percent renewables target by 2030.
42
Senate Bill 100 – Current Renewable Portfolio Standards
In September 2018, SB 100 was signed by Governor Brown to revise California’s RPS program
goals, furthering California’s focus on using renewable energy and carbon-free power sources for
its energy needs. The bill would require all California utilities to supply a specific percentage of
their retail sales from renewable resources by certain target years. By December 31, 2024, 44
percent of the retails sales would need to be from renewable energy sources, by December 31,
2026 the target would be 40 percent, by December 31, 2017 the target would be 52 percent, and
by December 31, 2030 the target would be 60 percent. By December 31, 2045, all California
utilities would be required to supply retail electricity that is 100 percent carbon-free and sourced
from eligible renewable energy resource to all California end-use customers.
California Building Standards Code – Title 24 Part 11 & Part 6
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) is part of the California
Building Standards Code under Title 24, Part 11.51 The CALGreen Code encourages sustainable
construction standards that involve planning/design, energy efficiency, water efficiency resource
efficiency, and environmental quality. These green building standard codes are mandatory
statewide and are applicable to residential and non-residential developments. The most recent
CALGreen Code (2019 California Building Standard Code) was effective as of January 1, 2020.
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code) is under Title 24,
Part 6 and is overseen by the California Energy Commission (CEC). This code includes design
requirements to conserve energy in new residential and non-residential developments, while being
cost effective for homeowners. This Energy Code is enforced and verified by cities during the
planning and building permit process. The current energy efficiency standards (2019 Energy Code)
replaced the 2016 Energy Code as of January 1,2020. Under the 2019 standards, single-family
homes are predicted to be 53 percent more efficient than homes built under the 2016 standard due
more stringent energy-efficiency standards and mandatory installation of solar photovoltaic
systems. For nonresidential developments, it is predicted that these buildings will use 30 percent
less energy due to lightening upgrades.52
CEC studies have identified the most aggressive electrification scenario as putting the building
sector on track to reach the carbon neutrality goal by 2045.53 Installing new natural gas
infrastructure in new buildings will interfere with this goal. To meet the State’s goal, communities
have been adopting “Reach” codes that prohibit natural gas connections in new and remodeled
buildings.
Requirements for EV charging infrastructure are set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations and are regularly updated on a 3-year cycle. The CALGreen standards consist of a set
of mandatory standards required for new development, as well as two more voluntary standards
51 See: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Resources/Page-Content/Building-Standards-Commission-Resources-List-
Folder/CALGreen#:~:text=CALGreen%20is%20the%20first%2Din,to%201990%20levels%20by%202020.
52 See: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf
53 California Energy Commission. 2021. Final Commission Report: California Building Decarbonization
Assessment. Publication Number CEC-400-2021-006-CMF.August
43
known as Tier 1 and Tier 2. The CalGreen standards have recently been updated (2022 version) to
require deployment of additional EV chargers in various building types, including multifamily
residential and nonresidential land uses. They include requirements for both EV capable parking
spaces and the installation of Level 2 EV supply equipment for multifamily residential and
nonresidential buildings. The 2022 CALGreen standards include requirements for both EV
readiness and the actual installation of EV chargers. The 2022 CALGreen standards include both
mandatory requirements and more aggressive voluntary Tier 1 and Tier 2 provisions. Providing
EV charging infrastructure that meets current CALGreen requirements will not be sufficient to
power the anticipated more extensive level of EV penetration in the future that is needed to meet
SB 30 climate goals.
SB 743 Transportation Impacts
Senate Bill 743 required lead agencies to abandon the old “level of service” metric for evaluating
a project’s transportation impacts, which was based solely on the amount of delay experienced by
motor vehicles. In response, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) developed a
VMT metric that considered other factors such as reducing GHG emissions and developing
multimodal transportation54. A VMT-per-capita metric was adopted into the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3 in November 2017. Given current baseline per-capita VMT levels computed by
CARB in the 2030 Scoping Plan of 22.24 miles per day for light-duty vehicles and 24.61 miles per
day for all vehicle types, the reductions needed to achieve the 2050 climate goal are 16.8 percent
for light-duty vehicles and 14.3 percent for all vehicle types combined. Based on this analysis (as
well as other factors), OPR recommended using a 15-percent reduction in per capita VMT as an
appropriate threshold of significance for evaluating transportation impacts.
Advanced Clean Cars
The Advanced Clean Cars Program, originally adopted by CARB in 2012, was designed to bring
together CARB’s traditional passenger vehicle requirements to meet federal air quality standards
and also support California’s AB 32 goals to develop and implement programs to reduce GHG
emissions back down to 1990 levels by 2020, a goal achieved in 2016 as a result of numerous
emissions reduction programs.
This recent rule, Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) is phase two of the original rule. ACC II
establishes a year-by-year process, starting in 2026, so all new cars and light trucks sold in
California will be zero-emission vehicles by 2035, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The
regulation codifies the light-duty vehicle goals set out in Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-
79-20. Currently, 16 percent of new light-duty vehicles sold in California are zero emissions or
plug-in hybrids. By 2030, 68 percent of new vehicles sold in California would be zero emissions
and 100 percent by 2035.
54 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in
CEQA. December.
44
City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan
Also adopted in October 2022, the City of South San Francisco’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was
developed alongside the October 2022 update to the City’s General Plan55. The updated CAP
extends the horizon year to 2040 and sets a long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 to align
with State targets. The updated CAP aims to achieve the following:
1. Achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, reduce emissions 40% by 2030, and 80% by 2040.
2. Equitably mitigate and address the impacts of climate change.
3. Realize the co-benefits of climate mitigation actions that help create a sustainable
community.
To achieve these goals, the CAP includes various strategies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. The following are strategies and actions that may be implemented citywide which could
indirectly apply to this proposed project:
BNC 1.1 Improve the energy efficiency of new construction. Provide a combination of
financial and development process incentives (eg. Expedited permitting, FAR
increase, etc.) to encourage new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency
standard.
BNC 2.1 All-Electric Reach Code for Nonresidential New Construction. Implement
residential all-electric reach code and adopt all-electric reach code for
nonresidential new construction.
BE 1.3 Energy Efficiency Programs. Update zoning and building codes to require
alternations or additions at least 50% the size of the original building to comply
with minimum CALGreen requirements.
BE 2.4 All-Electric Major Renovations. Adopt an all-electric reach code for major
renovations, alterations, additions.
TL 2.2 TDM Program. Implement, monitor, and enforce compliance with the City’s
TDM Ordinance.
TL 2.6 Complete Streets Policy. Ensure that all roadway and development projects are
designed and evaluated to meet the needs of all street users, and that development
projects contribute to multimodal improvements in proportion to their potential
impacts on vehicle miles traveled. Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian
improvements identified in the Active South City Plan.
WW 2.1 Indoor Water Efficiency Standards. Require high-efficiency fixtures in all new
construction and major renovations, comparable to CalGreen Tier 1 or 2 standards.
55 City of South San Francisco, URL: https://shapessf.com/wp-
content/uploads/2022/11/SSFCAP_AdoptedResolution.pdf
45
BAAQMD GHG Significance Thresholds
On April 20, 2022, BAAQMD adopted new thresholds of significance for operational GHG
emissions from land use projects for projects beginning the CEQA process. The following
framework is how BAAQMD will determine GHG significance moving forward.56 Note
BAAQMD intends that the thresholds apply to projects that begin the CEQA process after adoption
of the thresholds, unless otherwise directed by the lead agency. The new thresholds of significance
are:
A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:
a. Buildings
i. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both
residential and non-residential development).
ii. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage
as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and
Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
b. Transportation
i. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the
regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate
Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill
743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office
of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation
Impacts in CEQA:
1. Residential Projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita
2. Office Projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee
3. Retail Projects: no net increase in existing VMT
ii. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most
recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).
Any new land use project would have to include either section A or B from the above list, not both,
to be considered in compliance with BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds of significance. As shown in
Impact GHG-2, the project is complying with section B from this list.
Impact GHG-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the environment?
GHG emissions associated with development of the proposed project would occur over the short-
term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust and
worker and vendor trips. There would also be long-term operational emissions associated with
vehicular traffic within the project vicinity, energy and water usage, and solid waste disposal.
56 Justification Report: BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land
Use Project and Plans. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-thresholds-
2022/justification-report-pdf.pdf?la=en
46
Emissions for the proposed project are discussed below and were analyzed using the methodology
recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
CalEEMod Modeling
CalEEMod was used to predict GHG emissions from operation of the site assuming full build-out
of the project. The project land use types and size and other project-specific information were input
to the model, as described above within the construction period emissions. CalEEMod output is
included in Attachment 1.
Construction GHG Emissions
GHG emissions associated with construction were computed at 6,735 MT of CO2e for the total
construction period. These are the emissions from on-site operation of construction equipment,
vendor and hauling truck trips, and worker trips. Neither the City nor BAAQMD have an adopted
threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions, though BAAQMD recommends
quantifying emissions and disclosing that GHG emissions would occur during construction.
BAAQMD also encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG
emissions during construction where feasible and applicable. Construction emissions have been
amortized over the average 40-year life-span of a building and added to the operational emissions
for this analysis.
Operational GHG Emissions
The CalEEMod model, along with the project vehicle trip generation rates, was used to estimate
daily emissions associated with operation of the fully-developed site under the proposed project.
As shown in Table 8, annual GHG emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project are
predicted to be a net of 4,810 MT of CO2e in 2028.
Table 8. Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons
Source Category Existing Use in
2022
Proposed Project
in 2028 Net Increase
Construction (Amortized) 0.00 168.38 168.38
Area 0.00 0.04 0.04
Energy Consumption 149.83 1,187.05 1,037.22
Mobile 637.45 3,903.00 3,265.55
Stationary 0.00 281.69 281.69
Solid Waste Generation 4.34 34.39 30.05
Water Usage 76.02 271.50 195.48
Total (MT CO2e/year) 868 5,678 4,810
Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
For this impact to be considered less than significant, it must be consistent with a local GHG
reduction strategy or meet the minimum project design elements recommended by BAAQMD.
The City’s CAP was developed alongside the October 2022 update to the City’s General Plan.
47
The EIR provided the environmental review and subsequent public review process that would
qualify the updated 2022 CAP under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Further, the CAP
quantified GHG emissions in the South San Francisco area, established a level where emissions
from activities in the South San Francisco area would not be cumulatively considerable,
identified GHG emissions resulting from actions within the South San Francisco area, specified
project-level measures to achieve the emissions level specified by the CAP, and established a set
time-period to monitor the CAPs progress towards achieving the emissions level specified. As
such, the City’s CAP is considered a qualified GHG reduction strategy under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15183.5(b)(1). Furthermore, the Project meets the project-level thresholds
recommended by BAAQMD. The Project would be energy efficient and not utilize natural gas,
include EV charging stations consistent with the requirements under Section 20.330.008 of the
City’s Municipal Code and the CalGreen Tier 2 requirements at the time of project application,
and has VMT per employee of 12.4 after TDM plan implementation, more than 15% below the
existing regional VMT per employee.
Conclusion GHG-1 and GHG-2
The project is considered to have less than significant impacts from GHG emissions because it is
consistent with the newly adopted Climate Action Plan, a qualified plan under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15183.5(b). Operational GHG emissions analyzed by the EIR were found to have less
than significant impacts.
48
Supporting Documentation
Attachment 1 is the methodology used to compute community risk impacts, including the methods
to compute lifetime cancer risk from exposure to project emissions.
Attachment 2 includes the CalEEMod output for project construction emissions. Also included are
any modeling assumptions.
Attachment 3 includes the EMFAC2021 emissions modeling. The input files for these calculations
are voluminous and are available upon request in digital format.
Attachment 4 is the construction health risk assessment. This includes the summary of the
dispersion modeling and the cancer risk calculations for construction. AERMOD dispersion
modeling files for this assessment, which are quite voluminous, are available upon request and
would be provided in digital format
Attachment 5 includes the cumulative community risk calculations, modeling results, and health
risk calculations from sources affecting the construction MEI and project site receptors.
Attachment 1: Health Risk Calculation Methodology
A health risk assessment (HRA) for exposure to Toxic Air Contaminates (TACs) requires the
application of a risk characterization model to the results from the air dispersion model to estimate
potential health risk at each sensitive receptor location. The State of California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and California Air Resources Board
(CARB) develop recommended methods for conducting health risk assessments. The most recent
OEHHA risk assessment guidelines were published in February of 2015.57 These guidelines
incorporate substantial changes designed to provide for enhanced protection of children, as
required by State law, compared to previous published risk assessment guidelines. CARB has
provided additional guidance on implementing OEHHA’s recommended methods.58 This HRA
used the 2015 OEHHA risk assessment guidelines and CARB guidance. The BAAQMD has
adopted recommended procedures for applying the newest OEHHA guidelines as part of
Regulation 2, Rule 5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants.59 Exposure parameters
from the OEHHA guidelines and the recent BAAQMD HRA Guidelines were used in this
evaluation.
Cancer Risk
Potential increased cancer risk from inhalation of TACs is calculated based on the TAC
concentration over the period of exposure, inhalation dose, the TAC cancer potency factor, and an
age sensitivity factor to reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and children to cancer causing
TACs. The inhalation dose depends on a person’s breathing rate, exposure time and frequency and
duration of exposure. These parameters vary depending on the age, or age range, of the persons
being exposed and whether the exposure is considered to occur at a residential location or other
sensitive receptor location.
The current OEHHA guidance recommends that cancer risk be calculated by age groups to account
for different breathing rates and sensitivity to TACs. Specifically, they recommend evaluating
risks for the third trimester of pregnancy to age zero, ages zero to less than two (infant exposure),
ages two to less than 16 (child exposure), and ages 16 to 70 (adult exposure). Age sensitivity
factors (ASFs) associated with the different types of exposure are an ASF of 10 for the third
trimester and infant exposures, an ASF of 3 for a child exposure, and an ASF of 1 for an adult
exposure. Also associated with each exposure type are different breathing rates, expressed as liters
per kilogram of body weight per day (L/kg-day) or liters per kilogram of body weight per 8-hour
period for the case of worker or school child exposures. As recommended by the BAAQMD for
residential exposures, 95th percentile breathing rates are used for the third trimester and infant
exposures, and 80th percentile breathing rates for child and adult exposures. For children at schools
and daycare facilities, BAAQMD recommends using the 95th percentile 8-hour breathing rates.
Additionally, CARB and the BAAQMD recommend the use of a residential exposure duration of
57 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
February.
58 CARB, 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. July 23.
59 BAAQMD, 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment ( HRA) Guidelines. December 2016.
30 years for sources with long-term emissions (e.g., roadways). For workers, assumed to be adults,
a 25-year exposure period is recommended by the BAAQMD. For school children a 9-year
exposure period is recommended by the BAAQMD.
Under previous OEHHA and BAAQMD HRA guidance, residential receptors are assumed to be
at their home 24 hours a day, or 100 percent of the time. In the 2015 Risk Assessment Guidance,
OEHHA includes adjustments to exposure duration to account for the fraction of time at home
(FAH), which can be less than 100 percent of the time, based on updated population and activity
statistics. The FAH factors are age-specific and are: 0.85 for third trimester of pregnancy to less
than 2 years old, 0.72 for ages 2 to less than 16 years, and 0.73 for ages 16 to 70 years. Use of the
FAH factors is allowed by the BAAQMD if there are no schools in the project vicinity have a
cancer risk of one in a million or greater assuming 100 percent exposure (FAH = 1.0).
Functionally, cancer risk is calculated using the following parameters and formulas:
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 106
Where:
CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR* x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where:
Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
8HrBR = 8-hour breathing rate (L/kg body weight-8 hours)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
The health risk parameters used in this evaluation are summarized as follows:
Exposure Type Infant Child Adult
Parameter Age Range 3rd
Trimester
0<2 2 < 16 16 - 30
DPM Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day)-1 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) 80th Percentile Rate 273 758 572 261
Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) 95th Percentile Rate 361 1,090 745 335
8-hour Breathing Rate (L/kg-8 hours) 95th Percentile Rate - 1,200 520 240
Inhalation Absorption Factor 1 1 1 1
Averaging Time (years) 70 70 70 70
Exposure Duration (years) 0.25 2 14 14*
Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350 350 350 350*
Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 1
Fraction of Time at Home (FAH) 0.85-1.0 0.85-1.0 0.72-1.0 0.73*
* An 8-hour breathing rate (8HrBR) is used for worker and school child exposures.
Non-Cancer Hazards
Non-cancer health risk is usually determined by comparing the predicted level of exposure to a
chemical to the level of exposure that is not expected to cause any adverse effects (reference
exposure level), even to the most susceptible people. Potential non-cancer health hazards from
TAC exposure are expressed in terms of a hazard index (HI), which is the ratio of the TAC
concentration to a reference exposure level (REL). OEHHA has defined acceptable concentration
levels for contaminants that pose non-cancer health hazards. TAC concentrations below the REL
are not expected to cause adverse health impacts, even for sensitive individuals. The total HI is
calculated as the sum of the HIs for each TAC evaluated and the total HI is compared to the
BAAQMD significance thresholds to determine whether a significant non-cancer health impact
from a project would occur.
Typically, for residential projects located near roadways with substantial TAC emissions, the
primary TAC of concern with non-cancer health effects is diesel particulate matter (DPM). For
DPM, the chronic inhalation REL is 5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).
Annual PM2.5 Concentrations
While not a TAC, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) has been identified by the BAAQMD as a
pollutant with potential non-cancer health effects that should be included when evaluating
potential community health impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
thresholds of significance for PM2.5 (project level and cumulative) are in terms of an increase in
the annual average concentration. When considering PM2.5 impacts, the contribution from all
sources of PM2.5 emissions should be included. For projects with potential impacts from nearby
local roadways, the PM2.5 impacts should include those from vehicle exhaust emissions, PM2.5
generated from vehicle tire and brake wear, and fugitive emissions from re-suspended dust on the
roads.
Attachment 2: CalEEMod Modeling Inputs and Outputs
Air Quality/Noise Construction Information Data Request
Project Name: 800 Dubuque
See Equipment Type TAB for type, horsepower and load factor
Project Size N/A Dwelling Units 5.9 total project acres disturbed
N/A s.f. residential Pile Driving? Y
N/A s.f. retail
900,000 s.f. office/R&D
Project include on-site GENERATOR OR FIRE PUMP during project OPERATION
(not construction)? Y ____
0 s.f. other, specify:
IF YES (if BOTH separate values) -->
640000 s.f. parking garage 1420 spaces
Kilowatts/Horsepower: __(6) total generators 11,000 total kW_______
0 s.f. parking lot spaces
Fuel Type: ____Diesel_________
Construction Days 8/1/2023 to 3/26/2027 Location in project (Plans Desired if Available): Various
Construction Hours 7:00 am to 3:30 pm
DO NOT MULTIPLY EQUIPMENT HOURS/DAY BY THE QUANTITY OF EQUIPMENT
Quantity Description HP Load Factor Hours/day
Total
Work
Days
Avg.
Hours per
day
HP
Annual
Hours Comments
Site Preparation (includes demo
and underground utilities)Start Date: 8/1/2023 Total phase: 120 Overall Import/Export Volumes
End Date: 1/15/2024
3 Excavators 300 0.38 8 120 8 328320 Demolition Volume
1 Generators 50 0.74 8 120 8 35520 Square footage of buildings to be demolished1 Compressors 49 0.6 8 120 8 28224 (or total tons to be hauled)
2 Backhoe 70 0.37 8 120 8 49728 _113,595_ square feet or
1 Bulldozer (D6) 150 0.4 8 120 8 57600 _?_ Hauling volume (tons)1 Plate Compactors 8 0.43 8 120 8 3302.4
1 Bobcat Loader 70 0.37 8 120 8 24864
1 Sweeper 64 0.46 4 120 4 14131.2
Any pavement demolished and hauled? _112_ tons
Grading (includes shoring and 4
levels of excavation)Start Date: 1/16/2024 Total phase: 234 AL to get from estimating
End Date: 12/6/2024
3 Excavators 300 0.38 8 234 8 640224
1 Backhoe 70 0.37 8 234 8 484851 Bulldozer (D6) 150 0.4 8 234 8 112320
1 Bobcat Loader 70 0.37 8 234 8 48484.8 Soil Hauling Volume
1 Sweeper 64 0.46 4 234 4 27555.84 Export volume = 331,000 cubic yards?2 Grout Pump 40 0.74 8 234 8 110822 Import volume = 0 cubic yards?
5 Drill Rig/Tieback drill rig 200 0.5 8 234 8 936000
1 Mobile Crane 150 0.29 8 234 8 814321 Roller/Compactor 100 0.37 4 234 4 34632
1 Dewatering pumps (electric) N/A N/A 24 563 24 N/A Dewaterin
Building Construction (includes all
construction from bottom of
excavation to finished building)Start Date: 12/7/2024 Total phase: 563
End Date: 2/3/2027 Cement Trucks? _8,400_ Total Round-Trips
1 Mobile Crane 150 0.29 8 234 3.3250444 814322 Sky Jack Lift 75 0.31 8 563 8 209436
6 Spider Lift (electric) N/A N/A 8 563 8 N/A Electric? (Y/N) __Y___ Otherwise assumed diesel1 Compressor (electric) N/A N/A 8 563 8 N/A Electric? (Y/N) __Y___ Otherwise assumed diesel2 Tower Crane (electric) N/A N/A 8 563 8 N/A Electric? (Y/N) __Y___ Otherwise assumed diesel
12 Welding Machine (electric) N/A N/A 8 563 8 N/A Electric? (Y/N) __Y___ Otherwise assumed diesel1 Backhoe 70 0.37 4 563 4 58327
1 Forklift (electric) N/A N/A 8 563 8 N/A Electric? (Y/N) __Y___ Otherwise assumed diesel
12 Scissor Lift (electric) N/A N/A 8 563 8 N/A Electric? (Y/N) __Y___ Otherwise assumed diesel6 Personnel Hoist (electric) N/A N/A 8 563 8 N/A Electric? (Y/N) __Y___ Otherwise assumed diesel
1 Sweeper 64 0.46 4 563 4 66299
Paving (includes site improvements, hardscape,
landscape)Start Date: 7/17/2026 Total phase: 181
End Date: 3/26/20271 Backhoe 70 0.37 8 181 8 375031 Bobcat Loader 70 0.37 8 181 8 37503
1 Asphalt Paver 175 0.36 8 181 8 912241 Roller 140 0.38 8 181 8 77034
1 Bulldozer (D6) 150 0.4 4 181 4 43440
1 Plate Compactors 8 0.43 8 181 8 49811 Sky Jack Lift 75 0.31 8 181 8 33666
1 Sweeper 64 0.46 4 181 4 21315
1.6 tons of asphalt is a cubic yard
Additional Phases Start Date: Total phase:
Start Date:
Complete ALL Portions in Yellow
Asphalt? __1,111 _ cubic yards or ____ round trips?
Unmitigated ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Fugitive CO2e
Year MT
2023 0.15 1.34 0.06 0.05 0.01 247.69
2024 0.49 4.64 0.18 0.16 0.40 1128.19
2025 0.08 0.80 0.02 0.02 0.00 172.87
2026 2.73 1.62 0.05 0.04 0.00 337.26
2027 2.32 0.51 0.02 0.01 0.00 102.78
2023 0.07 0.85 0.05 0.02 592.81
2024 0.15 1.93 0.11 0.04 1390.83
2025 0.14 1.82 0.11 0.04 1355.81
2026 0.13 1.72 0.11 0.04 1461.81
2027 0.03 0.38 0.02 0.01 332.35
2023 0.22 2.19 0.10 0.07 840.51
2024 0.64 6.58 0.28 0.21 2519.02
2025 0.22 2.62 0.13 0.06 1528.67
2026 2.86 3.34 0.15 0.09 1799.08
2027 2.35 0.89 0.04 0.02 435.13
Tons 6.28 15.62 0.71 0.45 7122.40
Pounds/Workdays
2023 3.97 40.15 1.90 1.35 109
2024 4.89 50.20 2.17 1.60 262
2025 1.67 20.09 0.96 0.47 261
2026 21.89 25.63 1.17 0.66 261
2027 76.94 29.04 1.32 0.80 61
Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0
Pounds 109.37 165.10 7.53 4.87 0.00
Average 13.16 32.74 1.48 0.95 0.00 954.00
Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0
Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5
Year
Total 6.98 2.89 4.28 1.16
Total 0.95 0.47 0.61 0.16
Tons/year 6.04 2.43 3.67 0.99
Threshold ‐ Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0
Pounds Per Day 33.08 13.29 20.11 5.45
Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0
Category
Project Existing Project 2030 Existing
Area 0.04 0.00
Energy 1187.05 149.83
Mobile 3903.00 637.45
Stationary 281.69
Waste 34.39 4.34
Water 271.50 76.02
TOTAL 5677.68 867.64
Net GHG Emissions 4810.04
Workdays
Total Construction Emissions
Construction Equipment
Total Construction Emissions by Year
CO2e
Tons
Total Construction Emissions
Average Daily Emissions
Construction Criteria Air Pollutants
Operational Criteria Air Pollutants
Tons
Existing Use Emissions
Net Annual Operational Emissions
Average Daily Emissions
EMFAC
Land Use Size Daily Trips New TripsWeekday Trip Gen Weekday Sat SunResearch & Development ksf900 9972 65827.3111.26 1.9 1.11TDM Reduction34%‐3390Rev1.23 0.72ExistingResearch & Development ksf113.595 947 9478.3411.26 1.9 1.11Rev1.41 0.82Traffic Consultant Trip Gen CalEEMod Default
Off-road Equipment - Provided by construction worksheet. Electric pump = 0 HP and 0 Load Factor.Off-road Equipment - Provided by construction worksheet.Trips and VMT - EMFAC2021 adjustment 0 trips, pavement demo = 112 tons, building const = 8,400 concrete truck round trips, paving = 1,111-cy asphalt.Demolition - Existing building demo = 113,595-sqft.Construction Phase - Provided in construction worksheet. 6 months of arch coating added for ROG emissions calculations.Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Provided by construction worksheet. Electric lifts, electric air compressors, electric cranes, electric forklifts, electric welders = 0 HP and 0 Load FactorOff-road Equipment - Default equipment since no phase provided.Off-road Equipment - Provided by construction worksheet.N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)01.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - Land Use - Total square footage and lot acreage provided in project construction sheet.Utility CompanyPeninsula Clean EnergyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0Precipitation Freq (Days)70Climate Zone5Operational Year20281.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.20Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,420.00 Space 0.00 640,000.00 0Research & Development 900.00 1000sqft 5.90 900,000.00800 Dubuque Ave, SSFSan Mateo County, Annual1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land UsageLand Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area PopulationCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 12.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 27.00Fleet Mix - EMFAC2021 fleet mix San Mateo County 2028.Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - 6 11,000-kW total, 14,745.31-hp total diesel generators - 50hrs/yrStationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps EF - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps EF - Tier 4/BACT emission factors for generators (NOx, PM10 PM2 5)Table Name Column Name Default Value New ValueVehicle Trips - Provided trip gen with reduction adjustments.Vehicle Emission Factors - EMFAC2021 vehicle emissions factors San Mateo County 2028.Energy Use - No reach code passed for new non-residential.Water And Wastewater - Wastewater treatment 100% aerobic - no septic tanks or lagoons.Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BMPs, tier 4 interim mitigation.Grading - Grading = 331,000-cy exported.
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblFleetMix LHD2 6.8710e-003 7.0230e-003tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.03tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.03tblFleetMix LDT2 0.24 0.30tblFleetMix LDT2 0.24 0.30tblFleetMix LDT1 0.08 0.04tblFleetMix LDT1 0.08 0.04tblFleetMix LDA 0.45 0.41tblFleetMix LDA 0.45 0.41tblFleetMix HHD 1.8670e-003 2.4360e-003tblFleetMix HHD 1.8670e-003 2.4360e-003tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 181.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 130.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 234.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 563.00tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 120.00tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.20 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.45 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 84.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.29 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 63.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 78.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 89.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 46.00 0.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 12.78 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 231.00 0.00tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 568,000.00 640,000.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 20.66 5.90tblGrading AcresOfGrading 234.00 117.00tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 331,000.00tblFleetMix UBUS 5.2200e-004 6.7900e-004tblFleetMix UBUS 5.2200e-004 6.7900e-004tblFleetMix SBUS 4.2400e-004 4.0200e-004tblFleetMix SBUS 4.2400e-004 4.0200e-004tblFleetMix OBUS 1.3840e-003 2.2460e-003tblFleetMix OBUS 1.3840e-003 2.2460e-003tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.4200e-003tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.4200e-003tblFleetMix MH 2.8140e-003 2.1040e-003tblFleetMix MH 2.8140e-003 2.1040e-003tblFleetMix MDV 0.15 0.17tblFleetMix MDV 0.15 0.17tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.02tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.02tblFleetMix LHD2 6.8710e-003 7.0230e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM2_5_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM2_5_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM2_5_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM10_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM2_5_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM10_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM10_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM10_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM10_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF NOX_EF 4.56 0.50tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF NOX_EF 4.56 0.50tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF NOX_EF 4.56 0.50tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF NOX_EF 4.56 0.50tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 4.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF NOX_EF 4.56 0.50tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 3.30tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 12.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.74 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.31 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.48 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.24tblVehicleEF HHD 0.19 0.21tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 25.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 111.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 45.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 557.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 252.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 30.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 517.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 41,375.00 0.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 1,340.50tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 804.30tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 3,753.40tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 1,340.50tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 3,753.40tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 3,753.40tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM2_5_EF 0.15 0.02
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF HHD 7.8960e-003 5.9300e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 1.2600e-004 9.3100e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 1.5000e-005 2.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 4.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 2.7100e-004 1.2900e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.36 0.28tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 4.4100e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 8.7420e-003 8.6320e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0080e-003 2.3510e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.09tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 2.40 2.73tblVehicleEF HHD 3.1440e-003 2.4630e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 5.10 3.48tblVehicleEF HHD 2.86 2.12tblVehicleEF HHD 0.24 0.26tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 0.32 0.24tblVehicleEF HHD 0.14 0.12tblVehicleEF HHD 891.28 724.85tblVehicleEF HHD 1,480.38 1,615.27tblVehicleEF HHD 1.02 1.55tblVehicleEF HHD 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 5.40 4.64
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 3.5660e-003 4.5380e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.22tblVehicleEF LDA 0.07 0.06tblVehicleEF LDA 9.0600e-004 8.4400e-004tblVehicleEF LDA 1.2680e-003 1.5140e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.3790e-003 1.6460e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 2.2280e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 6.3670e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 9.8400e-004 9.1800e-004tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LDA 0.13 0.19tblVehicleEF LDA 3.1120e-003 3.0940e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LDA 206.14 220.37tblVehicleEF LDA 43.85 57.42tblVehicleEF LDA 0.40 0.46tblVehicleEF LDA 1.80 2.32tblVehicleEF LDA 1.0040e-003 1.2470e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF HHD 1.2600e-004 9.3100e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 1.6000e-005 2.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 4.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 0.22 0.24tblVehicleEF HHD 2.7100e-004 1.2900e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.43 0.55tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 2.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 4.4100e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.01 0.01
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.35tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.10tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.0540e-003 1.1300e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.4500e-003 1.8690e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.5780e-003 2.0320e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 2.7930e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 7.9810e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.1460e-003 1.2280e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.06tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.15 0.26tblVehicleEF LDT1 3.4700e-003 5.2590e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT1 244.99 288.33tblVehicleEF LDT1 52.13 74.24tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.49 0.76tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.91 3.29tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.4820e-003 2.8080e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.07tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.17tblVehicleEF LDA 0.15 0.24tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 5.1800e-003 6.6150e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.22tblVehicleEF LDA 0.07 0.06tblVehicleEF LDA 2.0390e-003 2.1780e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 4.3400e-004 5.6800e-004tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.17tblVehicleEF LDA 0.14 0.22
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.17tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.0230e-003 9.2500e-004tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.3500e-003 1.5460e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.4690e-003 1.6810e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 2.7080e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 7.7370e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.1110e-003 1.0050e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.16 0.22tblVehicleEF LDT2 3.6670e-003 3.8830e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT2 252.30 291.96tblVehicleEF LDT2 54.02 73.80tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.50 0.54tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.32 2.62tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.5100e-003 1.5860e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.06tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.28tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.17 0.35tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 8.3040e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.35tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.10tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.4240e-003 2.8500e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 5.1600e-004 7.3400e-004tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.28tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.15 0.32tblVehicleEF LDT1 5.6920e-003 0.01
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.22 0.33tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.9400e-004 6.2600e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.23 0.23tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 10.37 17.46tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.1300e-004 5.5200e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.26 7.85tblVehicleEF LHD1 710.72 690.16tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.44 0.56tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.90 2.29tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.4150e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.18 0.19tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.2250e-003 4.4750e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.9800e-003 3.7050e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.13tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.20 0.27tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 8.1560e-003 8.3650e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.17tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.4960e-003 2.8860e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.3500e-004 7.3000e-004tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.13tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.18 0.24tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.6150e-003 5.7420e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD2 4.7090e-003 8.4910e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.13 0.14tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.5880e-003 2.4980e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.0540e-003 4.0030e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.14 0.10tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.2800e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.05tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.0300e-004 1.7300e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.3800e-004 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.0000e-005 7.6000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.9340e-003 6.7410e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.14 0.10tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.2800e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.9300e-004 1.1700e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.3800e-004 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.4660e-003 2.3250e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 5.9600e-003 6.9240e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.5600e-004 5.9900e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.2770e-003 7.2710e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.1000e-004 1.2800e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.8630e-003 9.3010e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD2 1.2300e-004 1.2400e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.06 0.06tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.2200e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 9.8860e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.0200e-004 5.4000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.6300e-004 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.7010e-003 2.6410e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3930e-003 1.3390e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.1100e-004 5.8000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.13 0.18tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.4560e-003 1.3990e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.07 0.06tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.26 0.34tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.06 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.81 9.06tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6210e-003 1.5880e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 12.86 12.94tblVehicleEF LHD2 689.13 728.14tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.44 0.35tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.51 1.23
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MCY 0.35 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.14 0.82tblVehicleEF MCY 0.60 2.88tblVehicleEF MCY 0.49 3.54tblVehicleEF MCY 2.0520e-003 1.9230e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 2.8510e-003 3.4470e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 3.0480e-003 3.6830e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 5.0400e-003 4.2000e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MCY 2.2000e-003 2.0600e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 1.15 0.48tblVehicleEF MCY 0.27 0.10tblVehicleEF MCY 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF MCY 0.02 6.0840e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 212.64 185.56tblVehicleEF MCY 59.12 41.28tblVehicleEF MCY 17.92 9.97tblVehicleEF MCY 9.35 7.60tblVehicleEF MCY 0.32 0.13tblVehicleEF MCY 0.25 0.15tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.06 0.06tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.2200e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 9.8860e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.7000e-005 9.0000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.6300e-004 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.6510e-003 7.0090e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.18tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF MDV 1.0090e-003 9.0700e-004tblVehicleEF MDV 1.3260e-003 1.5220e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.4420e-003 1.6560e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 2.7150e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 7.7570e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.0940e-003 9.8600e-004tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF MDV 0.17 0.24tblVehicleEF MDV 4.7890e-003 4.4600e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MDV 302.50 347.83tblVehicleEF MDV 63.56 87.43tblVehicleEF MDV 0.48 0.54tblVehicleEF MDV 2.34 2.64tblVehicleEF MDV 1.4480e-003 1.6360e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.06tblVehicleEF MCY 0.39 3.69tblVehicleEF MCY 2.07 1.18tblVehicleEF MCY 0.35 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.69 1.01tblVehicleEF MCY 0.60 0.07tblVehicleEF MCY 0.49 3.54tblVehicleEF MCY 2.1040e-003 1.8340e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 5.8500e-004 4.0800e-004tblVehicleEF MCY 0.39 3.69tblVehicleEF MCY 1.90 1.09
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MH 9.5540e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 2.1100e-004 2.4200e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 3.2860e-003 3.3310e-003tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 2.3000e-004 2.6400e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 0.87 1.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.22 0.26tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.07tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF MH 1,349.53 1,661.12tblVehicleEF MH 15.57 20.41tblVehicleEF MH 0.29 0.40tblVehicleEF MH 1.65 1.99tblVehicleEF MH 4.5770e-003 5.8310e-003tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.14tblVehicleEF MDV 0.21 0.29tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 7.8770e-003 8.8830e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.18tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF MDV 2.9890e-003 3.4370e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 6.2900e-004 8.6400e-004tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.14tblVehicleEF MDV 0.19 0.27tblVehicleEF MDV 5.4420e-003 6.1050e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MHD 1.67 1.22tblVehicleEF MHD 0.30 0.66tblVehicleEF MHD 1.30 0.70tblVehicleEF MHD 0.12 0.14tblVehicleEF MHD 8.0390e-003 7.4940e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 8.95 9.99tblVehicleEF MHD 8.1890e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 57.82 138.62tblVehicleEF MHD 988.39 1,180.59tblVehicleEF MHD 0.15 0.21tblVehicleEF MHD 0.92 1.08tblVehicleEF MHD 8.7640e-003 9.7490e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.38 0.65tblVehicleEF MHD 3.9050e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 1.0560e-003 9.8890e-003tblVehicleEF MH 4.0680e-003 0.09tblVehicleEF MH 0.08 0.10tblVehicleEF MH 0.09 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.04 0.06tblVehicleEF MH 0.19 14.21tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 3.78tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 1.5400e-004 2.0200e-004tblVehicleEF MH 4.0680e-003 0.09tblVehicleEF MH 0.07 0.09tblVehicleEF MH 0.09 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.19 14.21tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 3.78
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 9.0140e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.66 0.50tblVehicleEF OBUS 6.7640e-003 6.8190e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.9830e-003 9.0900e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 0.05 0.06tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5800e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 4.7930e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 8.9000e-005 9.9000e-005tblVehicleEF MHD 2.2600e-004 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 5.4900e-004 1.2780e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 9.4340e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 0.04 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5800e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 4.7930e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 1.0400e-004 1.1300e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 2.2600e-004 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 5.9980e-003 6.9320e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 1.1400e-004 1.2300e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 1.4800e-004 9.2500e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 6.2770e-003 7.2580e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5500e-004 9.6700e-004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF OBUS 1.2200e-004 8.2000e-005tblVehicleEF OBUS 9.9700e-004 8.4600e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.8900e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 7.2060e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.05 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3400e-004 8.2000e-005tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.1800e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.5160e-003 7.5540e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4500e-004 8.9000e-005tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4600e-004 2.0900e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.8700e-003 7.9020e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.22 1.09tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.5300e-004 2.1800e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.46 0.36tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.47 0.67tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.16tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 8.5290e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 12.28 8.29tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 105.15 90.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 1,226.73 1,236.24tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.25 0.18tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.39 0.91
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF SBUS 2.3380e-003 9.4900e-004tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.32 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 8.7430e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.6300e-004 8.9000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.8530e-003 9.9480e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.88 0.50tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.4440e-003 9.9400e-004tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.66 1.15tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.08 1.86tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.09 0.10tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 6.1650e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.78 6.43tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 371.24 204.41tblVehicleEF SBUS 917.94 906.87tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.60 1.08tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.80 1.23tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 8.9030e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.05 2.68tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.14 0.11tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.6470e-003 0.08tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.8900e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 7.2060e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.1800e-004 0.03
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF UBUS 0.68 0.23tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.27 0.15tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.4330e-003 7.1890e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 1,627.29 1,017.30tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.93 5.32tblVehicleEF UBUS 12.61 6.86tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.82 0.89tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.67 0.60tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 4.5430e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.08 0.06tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.3300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.09 0.14tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.3080e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.89 0.49tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.7000e-005 6.4000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.8900e-004 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.5650e-003 1.8670e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.8560e-003 8.4930e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.3300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.07 0.06tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.3080e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.61 0.31tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.5000e-004 8.2000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.8900e-004 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.4630e-003 2.4870e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 8.3410e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.26 7.31tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.90 1.23tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.11 0.72tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.8190e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.07 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.2300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.71 0.65tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.9200e-004 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 3.3320e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 7.9550e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.8000e-005 5.3000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.8190e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.07 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.2300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.05tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.9200e-004 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 3.3320e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.7320e-003 4.1280e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.7000e-005 2.3000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.8010e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.9480e-003 4.3210e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.2000e-005 2.5000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.08 0.15tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.06tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.11 0.05
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedN2O CO2ePM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated ConstructionROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.51,120.1436 1,120.1436 0.3217 0.0000 1,128.18670.0288 0.0000 102.7781Maximum 2.7277 4.6443 4.9617 0.0128 0.7905 0.1931 0.9835 0.3976 0.1800 0.5776 0.00000.0207 0.0207 0.0000 102.0591 102.05911.1700e-003 0.0000 0.0223 0.0223 0.00002027 2.3183 0.5065 0.7091335.1525 335.1525 0.0845 0.0000 337.26460.0345 0.0000 172.86862026 2.7277 1.6237 2.2706 3.8500e-003 0.0000 0.0679 0.0679 0.0000 0.06360.0636 0.00000.0295 0.0295 0.0000 172.0061 172.00611.9800e-003 0.0000 0.0310 0.0310 0.00002025 0.0794 0.8015 1.12541,120.1436 1,120.1436 0.3217 0.0000 1,128.18670.0577 0.0000 247.69102024 0.4919 4.6443 4.9617 0.0128 0.7905 0.1931 0.9835 0.3976 0.1800 0.5776 0.00000.0613 0.0690 0.0000 246.2476 246.24762.8300e-003 0.0508 0.0649 0.1157 7.6900e-0032023 0.1488 1.3364 1.6614N2O CO2eYear tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH42.1 Overall ConstructionUnmitigated ConstructionROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.002.0 Emissions SummarytblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied13 8-1-2026 10-31-20261.6662 1.579612 5-1-2026 7-31-20260.2989 0.282611 2-1-2026 4-30-20260.2146 0.211610 11-1-2025 1-31-20260.2218 0.21879 8-1-2025 10-31-20250.2218 0.21878 5-1-2025 7-31-20250.2218 0.21877 2-1-2025 4-30-20250.2146 0.21166 11-1-2024 1-31-20250.6812 0.62265 8-1-2024 10-31-20241.3851 1.24904 5-1-2024 7-31-20241.3851 1.24903 2-1-2024 4-30-20241.3550 1.22192 11-1-2023 1-31-20240.9736 0.80121 8-1-2023 10-31-20230.8954 0.70880.00 0.00 0.00Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)N20 CO2ePercent Reduction7.99 7.01 -29.34 0.00 55.00 68.01 59.04 55.00 66.46 60.35 0.00 0.00 0.00PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5ROG NOx CO SO21,120.1422 1,120.1422 0.3217 0.0000 1,128.18540.0288 0.0000 102.7780Maximum 2.6548 4.3784 7.4200 0.0128 0.3557 0.0404 0.3961 0.1789 0.0391 0.2180 0.00008.5600e-0038.5600e-003 0.0000 102.0589 102.05891.1700e-003 0.0000 8.8600e-0038.8600e-003 0.00002027 2.2920 0.4503 0.7782335.1521 335.1521 0.0845 0.0000 337.26420.0345 0.0000 172.86842026 2.6548 1.5297 2.5323 3.8500e-003 0.0000 0.0350 0.0350 0.0000 0.03440.0344 0.00000.0215 0.0215 0.0000 172.0059 172.00591.9800e-003 0.0000 0.0215 0.0215 0.00002025 0.0497 0.8190 1.27961,120.1422 1,120.1422 0.3217 0.0000 1,128.18540.0577 0.0000 247.69072024 0.2437 4.3784 7.4200 0.0128 0.3557 0.0404 0.3961 0.1789 0.0391 0.2180 0.00000.0156 0.0190 0.0000 246.2473 246.24732.8300e-003 0.0229 0.0156 0.0384 3.4600e-0032023 0.0648 1.1108 1.8658Year tons/yrMT/yr
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedCH4 N2O CO2eExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO1.5917 0.5130 5,677.6753Mitigated Operational0.1198 1.1572 170.4484 5,314.5491 5,484.99750.0512 4.1617 0.1214 4.2831 1.0374Total 6.9842 2.8924 17.93270.0000 156.5659 0.5389 0.3405 271.50090.8204 0.0000 34.3934Water0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 156.56590.0000 0.0000 13.8826 0.0000 13.88260.0000 0.0000Waste280.7047 280.7047 0.0394 0.0000 281.68850.1703 0.1509 3,903.0021Stationary 0.6049 0.4279 1.5423 2.9100e-003 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.01610.00000.0213 1.0586 0.0000 3,853.7691 3,853.76910.0418 4.1617 0.0228 4.1846 1.0374Mobile 2.2192 1.3803 15.45861,180.0339 1,180.0339 0.0226 0.0216 1,187.04621.1000e-0040.0000 0.0442Energy 0.1192 1.0840 0.9105 6.5000e-003 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.00008.0000e-0058.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0415 0.04150.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005Area 4.0409 1.9000e-004 0.0213N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH42.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated OperationalROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Highest3.1776 3.087015 2-1-2027 4-30-20271.7422 1.690714 11-1-2026 1-31-20273.1776 3.0870
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied5 130Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1175 Building Interior Architectural Coating 9/26/2026 3/26/20275 5634 Paving Paving 7/17/2026 3/26/2027 5 1813 Building Construction Building Construction 12/7/2024 2/3/20275 1202 Grading Grading 1/16/2024 12/6/2024 5 2341 Demolition Demolition 8/1/2023 1/15/2024Start Date End Date Num Days WeekNum Days Phase Description3.0 Construction DetailConstruction PhasePhase NumberPhase Name Phase Type0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001.5917 0.5130 5,677.6753ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO20.1198 1.1572 170.4484 5,314.5491 5,484.99750.0512 4.1617 0.1214 4.2831 1.0374Total 6.9842 2.8924 17.93270.0000 156.5659 0.5389 0.3405 271.50090.8204 0.0000 34.3934Water0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 156.56590.0000 0.0000 13.8826 0.0000 13.88260.0000 0.0000Waste280.7047 280.7047 0.0394 0.0000 281.68850.1703 0.1509 3,903.0021Stationary 0.6049 0.4279 1.5423 2.9100e-003 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.01610.00000.0213 1.0586 0.0000 3,853.7691 3,853.76910.0418 4.1617 0.0228 4.1846 1.0374Mobile 2.2192 1.3803 15.45861,180.0339 1,180.0339 0.0226 0.0216 1,187.04621.1000e-0040.0000 0.0442Energy 0.1192 1.0840 0.9105 6.5000e-003 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.00008.0000e-0058.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0415 0.04150.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005Area 4.0409 1.9000e-004 0.0213Category tons/yrMT/yr
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.00Building Construction Cranes 2 8.00 00.00Building Construction Cranes 1 3.30 231 0.29Building Construction Air Compressors 1 8.00 00.31Building Construction Aerial Lifts 24 8.00 0 0.00Building Construction Aerial Lifts 2 8.00 630.46Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37Grading Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4.00 640.38Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40Grading Rollers 1 4.00 800.74Grading Pumps 1 24.00 0 0.00Grading Pumps 2 8.00 840.38Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41Grading Excavators 3 8.00 1580.50Grading Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29Grading Bore/Drill Rigs 5 8.00 2210.46Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37Demolition Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4.00 640.43Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40Demolition Plate Compactors 1 8.00 80.38Demolition Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 1580.48Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73Demolition Air Compressors 1 8.00 78Acres of Paving: 0Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 1,350,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 450,000; Striped Parking Area: 38,400 OffRoad EquipmentPhase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied3.1 Mitigation Measures ConstructionUse Cleaner Engines for Construction EquipmentWater Exposed AreaReduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved RoadsHHDTBuilding Interior 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixPaving 10 0.00 0.00 0.00HHDTBuilding Construction 46 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixGrading 18 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling VehicleClassDemolition 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT0.48Trips and VMTPhase Name Offroad Equipment CountWorker Trip NumberVendor Trip NumberHauling Trip NumberWorker Trip LengthVendor Trip LengthHauling Trip LengthWorker Vehicle ClassVendor Vehicle ClassBuilding Interior Air Compressors 1 6.00 780.46Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37Paving Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4.00 640.38Paving Rubber Tired Dozers 1 4.00 247 0.40Paving Rollers 1 8.00 800.36Paving Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 1320.31Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42Paving Aerial Lifts 1 8.00 630.37Building Construction Welders 12 8.00 0 0.00Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 4.00 970.74Building Construction Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4.00 64 0.46Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84Building Construction Forklifts 1 8.00 0 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO0.0577 0.0000 247.6910Unmitigated Construction Off-Site0.0613 0.0690 0.0000 246.2476 246.24762.8300e-003 0.0508 0.0649 0.1157 7.6900e-003Total 0.1488 1.3364 1.6614246.2476 246.2476 0.0577 0.0000 247.69100.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.1488 1.3364 1.6614 2.8300e-003 0.0649 0.0649 0.0613 0.0613 0.00000.0000 7.6900e-003 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0508 0.0000 0.0508 7.6900e-003Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.53.2 Demolition - 2023
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied3.2 Demolition - 20240.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO0.0577 0.0000 247.6907Mitigated Construction Off-Site0.0156 0.0190 0.0000 246.2473 246.24732.8300e-003 0.0229 0.0156 0.0384 3.4600e-003Total 0.0648 1.1108 1.8658246.2473 246.2473 0.0577 0.0000 247.69070.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0648 1.1108 1.8658 2.8300e-003 0.0156 0.0156 0.0156 0.0156 0.00000.0000 3.4600e-003 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0229 0.0000 0.0229 3.4600e-003Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedMitigated Construction On-Site0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO5.8100e-0030.0000 25.0010Unmitigated Construction Off-Site5.6500e-0036.4300e-003 0.0000 24.8558 24.85582.9000e-004 5.1200e-0035.9900e-0030.0111 7.8000e-004Total 0.0145 0.1283 0.167924.8558 24.8558 5.8100e-0030.0000 25.00100.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0145 0.1283 0.1679 2.9000e-004 5.9900e-0035.9900e-003 5.6500e-0035.6500e-003 0.00000.0000 7.8000e-004 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.1200e-0030.0000 5.1200e-003 7.8000e-004Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied3.3 Grading - 2024Unmitigated Construction On-Site0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO5.8100e-0030.0000 25.0009Mitigated Construction Off-Site1.4300e-0031.7800e-003 0.0000 24.8558 24.85582.9000e-004 2.3100e-0031.4300e-0033.7400e-003 3.5000e-004Total 6.3700e-0030.1107 0.188224.8558 24.8558 5.8100e-0030.0000 25.00090.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 6.3700e-0030.1107 0.1882 2.9000e-004 1.4300e-0031.4300e-003 1.4300e-0031.4300e-003 0.00000.0000 3.5000e-004 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.3100e-0030.0000 2.3100e-003 3.5000e-004Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedMitigated Construction On-Site0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO0.3137 0.0000 1,091.9269Unmitigated Construction Off-Site0.1722 0.5690 0.0000 1,084.0855 1,084.08550.0124 0.7853 0.1848 0.9701 0.3968Total 0.4719 4.4602 4.72021,084.0855 1,084.0855 0.3137 0.0000 1,091.92690.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.4719 4.4602 4.7202 0.0124 0.1848 0.1848 0.1722 0.1722 0.00000.0000 0.3968 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.7853 0.0000 0.7853 0.3968Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied3.4 Building Construction - 2024Unmitigated Construction On-Site0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO0.3137 0.0000 1,091.9256Mitigated Construction Off-Site0.0362 0.2148 0.0000 1,084.0842 1,084.08420.0124 0.3534 0.0375 0.3909 0.1786Total 0.2340 4.2137 7.14841,084.0842 1,084.0842 0.3137 0.0000 1,091.92560.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.2340 4.2137 7.1484 0.0124 0.0375 0.0375 0.0362 0.0362 0.00000.0000 0.1786 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.3534 0.0000 0.3534 0.1786Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedMitigated Construction On-Site0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.511.2023 11.2023 2.2600e-0030.0000 11.25892.2600e-0030.0000 11.2589Total 5.5200e-0030.0559 0.0736 1.3000e-004 2.3100e-0032.3100e-003 2.2000e-0032.2000e-003 0.00002.2000e-0032.2000e-003 0.0000 11.2023 11.20231.3000e-004 2.3100e-0032.3100e-003Off-Road 5.5200e-0030.0559 0.0736N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedN2O CO2ePM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.4 Building Construction - 2025Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.511.2023 11.2023 2.2600e-0030.0000 11.25892.2600e-0030.0000 11.2589Total 3.3200e-0030.0540 0.0834 1.3000e-004 1.4700e-0031.4700e-003 1.4700e-0031.4700e-003 0.00001.4700e-0031.4700e-003 0.0000 11.2023 11.20231.3000e-004 1.4700e-0031.4700e-003Off-Road 3.3200e-0030.0540 0.0834N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5172.0061 172.0061 0.0345 0.0000 172.86860.0345 0.0000 172.8686Total 0.0794 0.8015 1.1254 1.9800e-003 0.0310 0.0310 0.0295 0.0295 0.00000.0295 0.0295 0.0000 172.0061 172.00611.9800e-003 0.0310 0.0310Off-Road 0.0794 0.8015 1.1254Category tons/yrMT/yr
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0345 0.0000 172.86860.0295 0.0295 0.0000 172.0061 172.00611.9800e-003 0.0310 0.0310Off-Road 0.0794 0.8015 1.1254N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.4 Building Construction - 2026Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5172.0059 172.0059 0.0345 0.0000 172.86840.0345 0.0000 172.8684Total 0.0497 0.8190 1.2796 1.9800e-003 0.0215 0.0215 0.0215 0.0215 0.00000.0215 0.0215 0.0000 172.0059 172.00591.9800e-003 0.0215 0.0215Off-Road 0.0497 0.8190 1.2796
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied172.0059 172.0059 0.0345 0.0000 172.86840.0345 0.0000 172.8684Total 0.0497 0.8190 1.2796 1.9800e-003 0.0215 0.0215 0.0215 0.0215 0.00000.0215 0.0215 0.0000 172.0059 172.00591.9800e-003 0.0215 0.0215Off-Road 0.0497 0.8190 1.2796N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5172.0061 172.0061 0.0345 0.0000 172.8686Total 0.0794 0.8015 1.1254 1.9800e-003 0.0310 0.0310 0.0295 0.0295 0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied15.8167 15.8167 3.1700e-0030.0000 15.89603.1700e-0030.0000 15.8960Total 7.3000e-0030.0737 0.1035 1.8000e-004 2.8500e-0032.8500e-003 2.7100e-0032.7100e-003 0.00002.7100e-0032.7100e-003 0.0000 15.8167 15.81671.8000e-004 2.8500e-0032.8500e-003Off-Road 7.3000e-0030.0737 0.1035N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.4 Building Construction - 2027Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedMitigated Construction Off-Site15.8166 15.8166 3.1700e-0030.0000 15.89593.1700e-0030.0000 15.8959Total 4.5700e-0030.0753 0.1177 1.8000e-004 1.9800e-0031.9800e-003 1.9800e-0031.9800e-003 0.00001.9800e-0031.9800e-003 0.0000 15.8166 15.81661.8000e-004 1.9800e-0031.9800e-003Off-Road 4.5700e-0030.0753 0.1177N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0495 0.0000 155.5753Unmitigated Construction Off-Site0.0324 0.0324 0.0000 154.3377 154.33771.7700e-003 0.0351 0.0351Total 0.0807 0.7827 1.08280.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0495 0.0000 155.5753Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0324 0.0324 0.0000 154.3377 154.33771.7700e-003 0.0351 0.0351Off-Road 0.0807 0.7827 1.0828N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.5 Paving - 2026Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0495 0.0000 155.5751Mitigated Construction Off-Site0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 154.3375 154.33751.7700e-003 0.0133 0.0133Total 0.0415 0.6741 1.18950.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0495 0.0000 155.5751Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0127 0.0127 0.0000 154.3375 154.33751.7700e-003 0.0133 0.0133Off-Road 0.0415 0.6741 1.1895N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0252 0.0000 79.0841Unmitigated Construction Off-Site0.0164 0.0164 0.0000 78.4550 78.45509.0000e-004 0.0179 0.0179Total 0.0410 0.3979 0.55040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0252 0.0000 79.0841Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0164 0.0164 0.0000 78.4550 78.45509.0000e-004 0.0179 0.0179Off-Road 0.0410 0.3979 0.5504N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.5 Paving - 2027Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0252 0.0000 79.0840Mitigated Construction Off-Site6.4600e-0036.4600e-003 0.0000 78.4549 78.45499.0000e-004 6.7700e-0036.7700e-003Total 0.0211 0.3427 0.60460.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0252 0.0000 79.0840Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00006.4600e-0036.4600e-003 0.0000 78.4549 78.45499.0000e-004 6.7700e-0036.7700e-003Off-Road 0.0211 0.3427 0.6046N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied4.8000e-0040.0000 8.8207Unmitigated Construction Off-Site1.7800e-0031.7800e-003 0.0000 8.8087 8.80871.0000e-004 1.7800e-0031.7800e-003Total 2.5676 0.0395 0.06248.8087 8.8087 4.8000e-0040.0000 8.82070.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 5.8900e-0030.0395 0.0624 1.0000e-004 1.7800e-0031.7800e-003 1.7800e-0031.7800e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 2.5617N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.6 Building Interior - 2026Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied4.8000e-0040.0000 8.8207Mitigated Construction Off-Site1.4000e-0041.4000e-004 0.0000 8.8087 8.80871.0000e-004 1.4000e-0041.4000e-004Total 2.5636 0.0366 0.06328.8087 8.8087 4.8000e-0040.0000 8.82070.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 1.8800e-0030.0366 0.0632 1.0000e-004 1.4000e-0041.4000e-004 1.4000e-0041.4000e-004 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 2.5617N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied4.2000e-0040.0000 7.7980Unmitigated Construction Off-Site1.5700e-0031.5700e-003 0.0000 7.7874 7.78749.0000e-005 1.5700e-0031.5700e-003Total 2.2699 0.0349 0.05527.7874 7.7874 4.2000e-0040.0000 7.79800.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 5.2100e-0030.0349 0.0552 9.0000e-005 1.5700e-0031.5700e-003 1.5700e-0031.5700e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 2.2647N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.6 Building Interior - 2027Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied4.2000e-0040.0000 7.7980Mitigated Construction Off-Site1.2000e-0041.2000e-004 0.0000 7.7874 7.78749.0000e-005 1.2000e-0041.2000e-004Total 2.2664 0.0323 0.05597.7874 7.7874 4.2000e-0040.0000 7.79800.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 1.6600e-0030.0323 0.0559 9.0000e-005 1.2000e-0041.2000e-004 1.2000e-0041.2000e-004 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 2.2647N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.1703 0.1509 3,903.00213,903.0021Unmitigated 2.2192 1.3803 15.4586 0.0418 4.1617 0.0228 4.1846 1.0374 0.0213 1.0586 0.0000 3,853.7691 3,853.76910.0000 3,853.7691 3,853.7691 0.1703 0.1509CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrMitigated 2.2192 1.3803 15.4586 0.0418 4.1617 0.0228 4.1846 1.0374 0.0213 1.0586Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OExhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures MobileROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedCH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO0.000402 0.0021045.0 Energy DetailHistorical Energy Use: N5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy0.000679 0.024361 0.000402 0.002104Research & Development 0.411757 0.041436 0.297526 0.170986 0.030624 0.007023 0.008420 0.002436 0.002246 0.000679 0.0243610.030624 0.007023 0.008420 0.002436 0.002246Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.411757 0.041436 0.297526 0.170986OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHMDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD4.4 Fleet MixLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT248.00 19.00 82 15 3Research & Development 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.000.00 0.00 0 0 0Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byLand Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W4.3 Trip Type InformationMiles Trip % Trip Purpose %12,405,925Total 6,579.00 1,107.00 648.00 12,405,925 12,405,925Research & Development 6,579.00 1,107.00 648.00 12,405,925Annual VMTEnclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT4.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedCH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2MitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.51,180.0339 1,180.0339 0.0226 0.0216 1,187.04620.0216 1,187.0462Total 0.1192 1.0840 0.9105 6.5000e-0030.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.00000.0824 0.0000 1,180.0339 1,180.0339 0.02260.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development2.2113e+0070.1192 1.0840 0.9105 6.5000e-0030.0824 0.0824 0.08240.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO25.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.51,180.0339 1,180.0339 0.0226 0.0216 1,187.04620.0226 0.0216 1,187.0462NaturalGas Unmitigated0.1192 1.0840 0.9105 6.5000e-003 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.00000.0824 0.0824 0.0000 1,180.0339 1,180.03396.5000e-003 0.0824 0.0824NaturalGas Mitigated0.1192 1.0840 0.91050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity Unmitigated0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Electricity Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedLand Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator3.4816e+0060.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000MitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development6.687e+0060.0000 0.0000Land Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator3.4816e+0060.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.3 Energy by Land Use - ElectricityUnmitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e1,180.0339 1,180.0339 0.0226 0.0216 1,187.04620.0216 1,187.0462Total 0.1192 1.0840 0.9105 6.5000e-0030.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.00000.0824 0.0000 1,180.0339 1,180.0339 0.02260.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development2.2113e+0070.1192 1.0840 0.9105 6.5000e-0030.0824 0.0824 0.08240.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.4826CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO1.1000e-0040.0000 0.04426.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigated0.0442Unmitigated 4.0409 1.9000e-004 0.0213 0.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0415 0.04150.0000 0.0415 0.0415 1.1000e-0040.0000CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrMitigated 4.0409 1.9000e-004 0.0213 0.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OExhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total6.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM100.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development6.687e+0060.0000 0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied7.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures Water0.0415 0.0415 1.1000e-0040.0000 0.04421.1000e-0040.0000 0.0442Total 4.0409 1.9000e-004 0.0213 0.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005 0.00008.0000e-0058.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0415 0.04150.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005Landscaping 1.9600e-0031.9000e-004 0.02130.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products3.5563 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.4826N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4MitigatedROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0415 0.0415 1.1000e-0040.0000 0.04421.1000e-0040.0000 0.0442Total 4.0409 1.9000e-004 0.0213 0.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005 0.00008.0000e-0058.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0415 0.04150.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005Landscaping 1.9600e-0031.9000e-004 0.02130.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products3.5563 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedLand Use MgaltonMT/yrMitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.3405 271.5009Total 156.5659 0.5389 0.3405 271.5009Research & Development442.525 / 0 156.5659 0.5389Land Use MgaltonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000271.50097.2 Water by Land UseUnmitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eUnmitigated 156.5659 0.5389 0.3405CategorytonMT/yrMitigated 156.5659 0.5389 0.3405 271.5009Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedLand Use tonstonMT/yr34.39348.2 Waste by Land UseUnmitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated 13.8826 0.8204 0.0000tonMT/yr Mitigated 13.8826 0.8204 0.0000 34.39348.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures WasteCategory/YearTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.3405 271.5009Total 156.5659 0.5389 0.3405 271.5009Research & Development442.525 / 0 156.5659 0.5389Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedLoad Factor Fuel TypeEmergency Generator 1 0 50 3753.4 0.73 DieselEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse PowerHorse Power Load Factor Fuel Type10.0 Stationary EquipmentFire Pumps and Emergency Generators9.0 Operational OffroadEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year0.0000 34.3934Total 13.8826 0.8204 0.0000 34.3934Research & Development68.39 13.8826 0.8204Land Use tonstonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000MitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.0000 34.3934Total 13.8826 0.8204 0.0000 34.3934Research & Development68.39 13.8826 0.8204Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied11.0 Vegetation280.7047 280.7047 0.0394 0.0000 281.68850.0394 0.0000 281.6885Total 0.6049 0.4279 1.5423 2.9100e-003 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.00000.0161 0.0161 0.0000 280.7047 280.70472.9100e-003 0.0161 0.0161Emergency Generator - Diesel (750 9999 HP)0.6049 0.4279 1.5423CH4 N2O CO2eEquipment Type tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx COUser Defined EquipmentEquipment Type Number10.1 Stationary SourcesUnmitigated/Mitigated0.73 DieselBoilersEquipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel TypeEmergency Generator 1 0 50 804.30.73 DieselEmergency Generator 1 0 50 1340.5 0.73 DieselEmergency Generator 1 0 50 1340.50.73 DieselEmergency Generator 1 0 50 3753.4 0.73 DieselEmergency Generator 1 0 50 3753.4
800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - ExistingSan Mateo County, Annual1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land UsageLand Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area PopulationCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedClimate Zone5Operational Year2022Utility CompanyPeninsula Clean Energy01.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.2Precipitation Freq (Days)70Research & Development 113.60 1000sqft 2.61 113,595.00Table Name Column Name Default Value New ValuetblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 0.00Off-road Equipment - Existing run - no construction.Grading - Vehicle Trips - Provided trip gen with reduction adjustments.Vehicle Emission Factors - EMFAC2021 vehicle emissions factors San Mateo County 2022.Fleet Mix - EMFAC2021 fleet mix San Mateo County 2022.01.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - Land Use - Provided in construction sheet - amount of square footage of existing buildings demo'ed.Construction Phase - Existing run - no construction.CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/7/2022 11/3/2022
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblFleetMix LDT2 0.22 0.25tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.03tblFleetMix LDA 0.49 0.50tblFleetMix LDT1 0.07 0.05tblFleetMix HHD 2.2470e-003 2.7140e-003tblFleetMix MHD 9.9900e-003 9.3450e-003tblFleetMix OBUS 1.5780e-003 2.4380e-003tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 0.14tblFleetMix MH 2.4690e-003 1.9850e-003tblFleetMix LHD2 5.8150e-003 5.4440e-003tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.02tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblFleetMix SBUS 4.4000e-004 4.3700e-004tblFleetMix UBUS 6.3600e-004 8.2800e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 1.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 4.86 4.44tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.26tblVehicleEF HHD 0.17 0.28tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 0.24 0.31tblVehicleEF HHD 0.16 0.13tblVehicleEF HHD 986.47 817.56tblVehicleEF HHD 1,722.89 1,847.10tblVehicleEF HHD 1.00 1.69tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF HHD 2.10 2.39tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0230e-003 3.8270e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 5.83 4.43tblVehicleEF HHD 4.02 3.26tblVehicleEF HHD 0.28 0.30tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 1.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 4.8060e-003 3.6570e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 6.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.10tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 1.6300e-004 2.7700e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.36 0.29tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 5.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 9.9100e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 8.6930e-003 8.6220e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 8.8510e-003 6.9760e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 7.5000e-005 2.2870e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 1.5000e-005 4.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 0.09 0.05tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 1.6300e-004 2.7700e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.42 0.58tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 3.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 9.9100e-004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF HHD 0.27 0.33tblVehicleEF LDA 0.56 0.66tblVehicleEF LDA 2.27 3.35tblVehicleEF LDA 2.0280e-003 2.3190e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.05 0.07tblVehicleEF HHD 7.5000e-005 2.2870e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 1.7000e-005 4.0000e-006tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 0.04tblVehicleEF LDA 0.19 0.25tblVehicleEF LDA 4.3020e-003 4.5170e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDA 248.55 259.69tblVehicleEF LDA 52.84 67.48tblVehicleEF LDA 1.2630e-003 1.1820e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.6690e-003 1.9750e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.8150e-003 2.1480e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 2.2660e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 6.4730e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.3710e-003 1.2840e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.21tblVehicleEF LDA 0.23 0.34tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 7.9940e-003 9.2860e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.27tblVehicleEF LDA 0.09 0.08tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.27tblVehicleEF LDA 0.09 0.08tblVehicleEF LDA 2.4430e-003 2.5670e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 5.1900e-004 6.6700e-004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.78 1.36tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.37 5.61tblVehicleEF LDT1 3.2790e-003 6.2870e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.11tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.21tblVehicleEF LDA 0.25 0.37tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.13tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.21 0.39tblVehicleEF LDT1 5.4800e-003 9.5160e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF LDT1 289.50 330.05tblVehicleEF LDT1 61.76 87.64tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.6130e-003 1.8230e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.0780e-003 2.7890e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.2600e-003 3.0330e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 2.8320e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 8.0920e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.7530e-003 1.9810e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.45tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.27 0.57tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.05 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.01 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.05 0.54tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.12 0.16tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.05 0.54tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.8460e-003 3.2630e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 6.0700e-004 8.6600e-004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF LDT1 0.05 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.12 0.16tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.66 0.74tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.78 3.68tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.6450e-003 2.6020e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.08tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.45tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.30 0.62tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.06tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.25 0.32tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.3110e-003 5.5370e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF LDT2 308.05 340.61tblVehicleEF LDT2 66.28 87.10tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.3620e-003 1.2760e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.7220e-003 2.0160e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.8730e-003 2.1920e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 2.7000e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 7.7140e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.4790e-003 1.3870e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.17tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.28 0.37tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.22tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.09 0.07tblVehicleEF LDT2 3.0280e-003 3.3670e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 6.5200e-004 8.6100e-004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.22tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.09 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.19 0.21tblVehicleEF LHD1 5.3000e-003 5.8430e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.2240e-003 7.3840e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.17tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.31 0.41tblVehicleEF LHD1 12.03 20.18tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.1700e-004 5.7900e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.84 8.65tblVehicleEF LHD1 796.65 802.84tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.62 0.87tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.08 2.43tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.31 0.47tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.9700e-004 5.8300e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.52 0.56tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.6300e-004 5.5800e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.2510e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.4800e-004 2.2600e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.6980e-003 9.2050e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.4250e-003 2.3010e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD1 0.06 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.2800e-004 2.0800e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.2870e-003 0.11tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.8460e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.6000e-005 8.4000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.7840e-003 7.8580e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.16 0.16tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.12tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.9700e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.9700e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.10 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.06 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.1900e-004 2.0000e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.2870e-003 0.11tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.1370e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.14 0.15tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.3550e-003 3.6130e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.3020e-003 6.7180e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.16 0.16tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.13tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.39 11.54tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6520e-003 1.5390e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 13.62 13.35tblVehicleEF LHD2 772.49 845.43tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.52 0.58tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.67 1.46
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD2 0.19 0.28tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3540e-003 1.2420e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.57 0.73tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.07 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.2960e-003 1.1880e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3800e-004 1.2400e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.2700e-004 1.1400e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.5600e-004 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.6700e-003 2.6260e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3000e-004 1.2800e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.4680e-003 8.1630e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.10 0.10tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.6600e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.10 0.10tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.6600e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.3000e-005 1.1400e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.5600e-004 0.07
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.12tblVehicleEF MCY 19.02 12.33tblVehicleEF MCY 9.17 7.96tblVehicleEF MCY 0.33 0.16tblVehicleEF MCY 0.26 0.19tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.10 0.10tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.08tblVehicleEF MCY 1.15 0.56tblVehicleEF MCY 0.27 0.15tblVehicleEF MCY 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF MCY 0.02 8.6710e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 213.08 188.69tblVehicleEF MCY 60.80 50.07tblVehicleEF MCY 1.9560e-003 1.8800e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 3.1380e-003 3.8360e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 3.3370e-003 4.0700e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 5.0400e-003 4.2000e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MCY 2.0940e-003 2.0070e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 0.44 3.72tblVehicleEF MCY 1.97 1.43tblVehicleEF MCY 0.38 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.21 1.05tblVehicleEF MCY 0.62 3.59tblVehicleEF MCY 0.57 3.56tblVehicleEF MCY 0.62 0.08tblVehicleEF MCY 0.57 3.56tblVehicleEF MCY 2.1090e-003 1.8650e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 6.0200e-004 4.9500e-004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF MCY 0.38 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.75 1.26tblVehicleEF MDV 0.69 0.80tblVehicleEF MDV 3.04 3.95tblVehicleEF MDV 2.8920e-003 3.2010e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.10tblVehicleEF MCY 0.44 3.72tblVehicleEF MCY 2.14 1.56tblVehicleEF MDV 0.06 0.08tblVehicleEF MDV 0.29 0.40tblVehicleEF MDV 6.9690e-003 7.1680e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF MDV 370.99 409.20tblVehicleEF MDV 79.06 104.08tblVehicleEF MDV 1.4320e-003 1.3380e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.8200e-003 2.1540e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.9790e-003 2.3430e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 2.7170e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 7.7630e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.5530e-003 1.4520e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.20tblVehicleEF MDV 0.34 0.48tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.26tblVehicleEF MDV 0.10 0.08tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.26tblVehicleEF MDV 3.6430e-003 4.0430e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 7.7700e-004 1.0290e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MDV 0.10 0.08tblVehicleEF MH 0.73 1.52tblVehicleEF MH 2.03 2.75tblVehicleEF MH 7.8210e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.20tblVehicleEF MDV 0.37 0.52tblVehicleEF MH 1.03 1.39tblVehicleEF MH 0.24 0.29tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF MH 1,502.52 1,675.54tblVehicleEF MH 18.02 23.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 3.2730e-003 3.3160e-003tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 2.7100e-004 3.6600e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 0.16 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.09tblVehicleEF MH 0.38 30.99tblVehicleEF MH 0.04 9.08tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 2.4900e-004 3.3600e-004tblVehicleEF MH 8.9160e-003 0.21tblVehicleEF MH 0.09 0.12
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF MH 0.38 30.99tblVehicleEF MH 0.04 9.08tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 1.7800e-004 2.2800e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 3.9210e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 4.7020e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 8.9160e-003 0.21tblVehicleEF MH 0.10 0.13tblVehicleEF MH 0.16 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.07 0.12tblVehicleEF MHD 68.23 157.17tblVehicleEF MHD 1,119.63 1,289.87tblVehicleEF MHD 0.43 0.60tblVehicleEF MHD 1.26 1.48tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 0.38 0.65tblVehicleEF MHD 0.49 1.01tblVehicleEF MHD 1.73 1.59tblVehicleEF MHD 0.14 0.15tblVehicleEF MHD 8.1860e-003 7.8620e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 10.33 11.01tblVehicleEF MHD 9.7120e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 1.2700e-004 1.4400e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 9.5000e-004 3.0550e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 0.03 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 1.39 1.20tblVehicleEF MHD 9.9300e-004 3.1930e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 8.8150e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 1.1700e-004 1.3300e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 3.4300e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 0.03 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 6.4800e-004 1.4600e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.07tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.07tblVehicleEF MHD 2.1300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 0.07 0.07tblVehicleEF MHD 2.1300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 0.08 0.09tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 8.8150e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 1.0200e-004 1.0900e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 3.4300e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.58 0.46tblVehicleEF OBUS 6.7140e-003 8.1590e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 5.0760e-003 8.2520e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.07tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.07tblVehicleEF OBUS 13.26 10.27tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 107.54 92.23tblVehicleEF OBUS 1,354.47 1,344.38tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.49 0.31tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.56 1.18
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF OBUS 1.06 1.06tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.9200e-004 2.5800e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.54 0.43tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.87 0.94tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.14 0.17tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 8.8370e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3600e-004 1.0300e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.5800e-004 2.4700e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 9.2440e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.9500e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 8.9140e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.05 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.2500e-004 9.4000e-005tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.7900e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3100e-004 1.0100e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.7900e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.0200e-003 8.6700e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.06tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.9500e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 8.9140e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.05
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF OBUS 0.08 0.06tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.00 1.81tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.26 1.18tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.1020e-003 7.9980e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.98 2.07tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.08 0.09tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.09tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.12 0.12tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.9500e-003 4.8570e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.23 5.49tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.03tblVehicleEF SBUS 360.00 206.71tblVehicleEF SBUS 1,028.45 1,021.11tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.62 0.44tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.5830e-003 1.8680e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.52 1.58tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.24 3.32tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.5990e-003 2.6000e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.3850e-003 1.7860e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.32 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.6000e-005 7.3000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.2750e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.36 0.24tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.9000e-005 6.7000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.6200e-004 0.05
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF SBUS 2.5600e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.11 0.10tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.2000e-005 5.4000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.6200e-004 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.4360e-003 1.8970e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.8650e-003 9.5730e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.5600e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.14 0.20tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.2750e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.51 0.38tblVehicleEF UBUS 1,802.99 1,395.58tblVehicleEF UBUS 9.26 5.76tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.26 2.06tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.82 0.83tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.84 0.16tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 7.7750e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.08 0.11tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.45 2.45tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.09 0.08tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.28 0.20tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.0140e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.7550e-003 6.8420e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.0000e-005 1.5000e-005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF UBUS 7.4180e-003 6.5410e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.6000e-005 1.4000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.8010e-003 7.3410e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.2390e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.06 0.03tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.8300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 0.14tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.7600e-004 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.3660e-003 8.2350e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.8300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.86 0.31tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.7600e-004 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.3660e-003 8.2350e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 9.2000e-005 5.7000e-005tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.26 8.342.0 Emissions SummarytblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.90 1.41tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.11 0.82tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.2390e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.06 0.032.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated OperationalROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5N2O CO2ePM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied0.0000 0.0000Area 0.5030 1.0000e-005 1.0500e-003Category tons/yrMT/yr0.4297 0.3298 3.0222148.9399 148.9399 2.8500e-0032.7300e-003 149.8251.0000e-0050.0000 2.16E-03Energy 0.0151 0.1368 0.1149 8.2000e-004 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0300e-0032.0300e-0030.00000.0000 1.7518 0.1035 0.0000 4.340.0340 0.0271 637.4487Waste0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.75184.3300e-0030.1535 0.0000 628.5220 628.52206.8200e-003 0.5987 4.6500e-0030.6034 0.1492Mobile867.63881.8199 0.0430 76.0229Total 0.9478 0.4666 3.1382 7.6400e-003 0.5987 0.0151 0.6138 0.1492 0.0147 0.1639 19.47090.0000 0.0000 17.7191 0.0000 17.71910.0000 0.0000WaterMitigated OperationalROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5777.4639 796.9349 1.9603 0.07280.0000 0.0000 2.0300e-0032.0300e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000Area 0.5030 1.0000e-005 1.0500e-003N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH46.8200e-003 0.5987 4.6500e-0030.6034 0.1492Mobile 0.4297 0.3298 3.0222148.9399 148.9399 2.8500e-0032.7300e-003 149.82501.0000e-0050.0000 2.1600e-003Energy 0.0151 0.1368 0.1149 8.2000e-004 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.00000.0000Water0.0000 1.7518 0.1035 0.0000 4.34000.0340 0.0271 637.4487Waste0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.75184.3300e-0030.1535 0.0000 628.5220 628.5220777.4639 796.9349 1.9603 0.0728 867.63881.8199 0.0430 76.0229Total 0.9478 0.4666 3.1382 7.6400e-003 0.5987 0.0151 0.6138 0.1492 0.0147 0.1639 19.47090.0000 0.0000 17.7191 0.0000 17.71910.0000 0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedCO SO20.00N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5ROG NOx0.00 0.00Annual VMTResearch & Development 947.38 160.17 93.15 1,786,678 1,786,678Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT4.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated MitigatedH-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byLand Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W1,786,6784.3 Trip Type InformationMiles Trip % Trip Purpose %Total 947.38 160.17 93.15 1,786,678OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHMDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD4.4 Fleet MixLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT248.00 19.00 82 15 3Research & Development 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00Historical Energy Use: N5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.000828 0.022216 0.000437 0.0019855.0 Energy Detail0.026659 0.005444 0.009345 0.002714 0.002438Research & Development 0.495110 0.045708 0.246625 0.140491N2O CO2ePM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied0.0000 0.0000Electricity MitigatedCategory tons/yrMT/yr0.0151 0.1368 0.11490.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity Unmitigated0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000148.9399 148.9399 2.8500e-0032.7300e-003 149.82502.8500e-0032.7300e-003 149.8250NaturalGas Unmitigated0.0151 0.1368 0.1149 8.2000e-004 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.00000.0104 0.0104 0.0000 148.9399 148.93998.2000e-004 0.0104 0.0104NaturalGas MitigatedCH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO25.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5148.9399 2.8500e-003 2.7300e-003149.8250Total 0.0151 0.1368 0.1149 8.2000e-0040.0104 0.0104 0.01040.0104 0.0104 0.0000 148.93990.1149 8.2000e-0040.0104 0.0104Research & Development2.79103e+0060.0151 0.13682.7300e-003149.8250MitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0104 0.0000 148.9399 148.9399 2.8500e-003N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 148.93990.1149 8.2000e-0040.0104 0.0104Research & Development2.79103e+0060.0151 0.13682.7300e-003149.82505.3 Energy by Land Use - ElectricityUnmitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.0104 0.0000 148.9399 148.9399 2.8500e-003148.9399 2.8500e-003 2.7300e-003149.8250Total 0.0151 0.1368 0.1149 8.2000e-0040.0104 0.0104 0.01040.0000 0.0000MitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eTotal 0.0000 0.0000Land Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrResearch & Development844011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000Land Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrResearch & Development844011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied6.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrMitigated 0.5030 1.0000e-005 1.0500e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OExhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total1.0000e-0050.0000 2.1600e-0036.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigated2.1600e-003Unmitigated 0.5030 1.0000e-005 1.0500e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0300e-0032.0300e-0030.0000 2.0300e-0032.0300e-0031.0000e-0050.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.0592CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO1.0000e-0041.0000e-005 1.0500e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products0.4437 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.0300e-0032.0300e-0031.0000e-0050.0000 2.1600e-0031.0000e-0050.0000 2.1600e-003Total 0.5030 1.0000e-005 1.0500e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0300e-0032.0300e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedN2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4MitigatedROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products0.4437 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.05922.0300e-0032.0300e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping 1.0000e-0041.0000e-005 1.0500e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00007.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures WaterTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e2.0300e-0032.0300e-0031.0000e-0050.0000 2.1600e-0031.0000e-0050.0000 2.1600e-003Total 0.5030 1.0000e-005 1.0500e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000CategorytonMT/yrMitigated 17.7191 1.8199 0.0430 76.0229
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied76.02297.2 Water by Land UseUnmitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eUnmitigated 17.7191 1.8199 0.04300.0430 76.0229MitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eTotal 17.7191 1.8199Land Use MgaltonMT/yrResearch & Development55.8515 / 0 17.7191 1.8199 0.0430 76.02290.0430 76.02298.0 Waste DetailTotal 17.7191 1.8199Land Use MgaltonMT/yrResearch & Development55.8515 / 0 17.7191 1.8199 0.0430 76.0229
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied8.1 Mitigation Measures WasteCategory/Year4.34008.2 Waste by Land UseUnmitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated 1.7518 0.1035 0.0000CO2etonMT/yr Mitigated 1.7518 0.1035 0.0000 4.3400Total CO2 CH4 N2O0.0000 4.3400MitigatedTotal 1.7518 0.1035Land Use tonstonMT/yrResearch & Development8.63 1.7518 0.1035 0.0000 4.3400
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eDays/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type10.0 Stationary Equipment0.0000 4.34009.0 Operational OffroadEquipment Type Number Hours/DayTotal 1.7518 0.1035Land Use tonstonMT/yrResearch & Development8.63 1.7518 0.1035 0.0000 4.3400User Defined EquipmentEquipment Type Number11.0 VegetationHorse Power Load Factor Fuel TypeBoilersEquipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel TypeFire Pumps and Emergency GeneratorsEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year
Attachment 3: EMFAC2021 Calculations
PollutantsROG NOx CO SO2Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total NBio‐ CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eYEAR2023 0.0674 0.8518 1.0156 0.0057 0.2246 0.0458 0.2704 0.0338 0.0191 0.0529 569.9644 0.0626 0.0714 592.81412024 0.1493 1.9314 2.3119 0.0135 0.5373 0.1086 0.6459 0.0808 0.0450 0.1258 1337.3074 0.1440 0.1675 1390.83422025 0.1385 1.8198 2.1973 0.0131 0.5359 0.1074 0.6432 0.0806 0.0441 0.1247 1303.7241 0.1364 0.1633 1355.80612026 0.1294 1.7208 2.1061 0.0128 0.5359 0.1067 0.6426 0.0806 0.0435 0.1241 1405.7950 0.1428 0.1760 1461.81042027 0.0284 0.3793 0.4709 0.0029 0.1248 0.0247 0.1495 0.0188 0.0100 0.0288 319.6496 0.0314 0.0400 332.34742023 0.0524 0.2029 0.3223 0.0007 0.0206 0.0041 0.0247 0.0031 0.0018 0.0049 65.1222 0.0117 0.0093 68.17172024 0.1170 0.4714 0.7330 0.0015 0.0494 0.0097 0.0590 0.0074 0.0042 0.0116 152.8887 0.0269 0.0217 160.01712025 0.1094 0.4542 0.6967 0.0015 0.0492 0.0095 0.0587 0.0074 0.0041 0.0115 149.2199 0.0256 0.0211 156.14822026 0.1030 0.4388 0.6674 0.0015 0.0492 0.0094 0.0586 0.0074 0.0040 0.0114 161.0637 0.0269 0.0227 168.51122027 0.0228 0.0986 0.1494 0.0003 0.0115 0.0022 0.0136 0.0017 0.0009 0.0026 36.6679 0.0060 0.0052 38.3573Summary of Construction Traffic Emissions (EMFAC2021) TonsCriteria PollutantsToxic Air Contaminants (1 Mile Trip Length)Metric Tons
Phase CalEEMod WORKER TRIPSCalEEMod VENDOR TRIPSTotal Worker TripsTotal Vendor TripsCalEEMod HAULING TRIPSWorker Trip LengthVendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle ClassVendor Vehicle ClassHauling Vehicle ClassWorker VMTVendor VMTHauling VMTDemolition28 03360 0539.410.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 36288 0 10788Grading43 010062 041,37510.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 108669.6 0 827500Building Construction557 252313591 1418761680010.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3386783 1035695 336000Paving20 03620 026710.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 39096 0 5340Building Interior111 014430 0010.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 155844 0 02023 8/1/23 12/31/23 153 1092024 1/1/24 12/31/24 366 2622025 1/1/25 12/31/25 365 2612026 1/1/26 12/31/2026 365 26120271/1/2027 3/26/202785 611334954Total WorkdaysPhase Start Date End Date Days/Week WorkdaysDemolition 8/1/2023 1/15/20245120Grading 1/16/2024 12/6/20245234Building Construction 12/7/2024 2/3/20275563Paving 7/17/2026 3/26/20275181Building Interior9/26/2026 3/26/2027 5130Number of Days Per YearCalEEMod Construction Inputs
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2022Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.Region Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_DIUR NH3_RUNECO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSan Mateo 2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.26179 607.5295 607.5295 0 85.26989 4.217209 0 0.00281 0.00146 0 0.000935 0.005 0.031258 0.001588 0 0.001017 0.02 0.089308 2276.876 0 54.98009 0.116906 0 0.000119 0.151563 0 0.000135 0.60109 0 0.000644 0.048478 0.400153 3.469663 0.877108 0 0.000705 0.048478 0.400153 3.469663 0.045 33.53367 0 6.080621 0.022509 0 0.000544San Mateo 2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1289.917 118758.5 118758.5 0 13886.59 3.367467 50.13908 2.567805 0.026697 0.041054 0 0.00861 0.031515 0.027904 0.04291 0 0.03444 0.090042 1868.7 8522.619 0 0.001942 0.155104 0 0.294414 1.342742 0 0.041821 3.33935500000.04761 3.80160100000.186789 0.159005 43.82276 0 0.017695 0.080704 0San Mateo 2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 144.1612 9768.638 9768.638 0 950.7524 1.845139 10.30429 0 0.002051 0.011217 0 0.009 0.058943 0.00223 0.012199 0 0.036 0.168408 1557.751 8370.006 0 3.666383 25.60841 0 0.317558 1.706281 0 0.087249 0.42939300003.781534 26.207600000.734123 18.35301 67.582460000San Mateo 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 240666.4 7995565 7995565 0 1130997 0.047702 0 0.275282 0.001241 0 0.002105 0.002 0.002347 0.001350 0.002289 0.008 0.006707 282.0072 0 72.08796 0.002546 0 0.077367 0.004869 0 0.033486 0.010142 0 0.368004 0.090257 0.23026 1.365279 0.014797 0 0.402916 0.090257 0.23026 1.365279 0.034582 0.726065 0 3.617602 0.002788 0 0.000713San Mateo 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 888.5395 22501.88 22501.88 0 3790.786 0.240012 0 0 0.015881 0 0 0.002 0.002391 0.016599 0 0 0.008 0.006831 236.5354 0 0 0.001267 0 0 0.037266 0 0 0.02727000000.031045000000.0031 0.330004 0 0 0.002241 0 0San Mateo 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 14591.4 568258.7 0 568258.7 72996.660000000.002 0.001529 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043680000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb6271.758 249381.9 127562.4 121819.5 25933.72 0.003286 0 0.117199 0.000663 0 0.002168 0.002 0.001311 0.000722 0 0.002358 0.008 0.003747 138.0528 066.27115 0.00043 0 0.042806 0.00058 0 0.020671 0.001381 0 0.176635 0.036142 0.032302 0.39726 0.002015 0 0.193393 0.036142 0.032302 0.39726 0.020013 0.206229 0 1.37819 0.001365 0 0.000655San Mateo 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 24136.47 736196.1 736196.1 0 109571 0.134919 0 0.395074 0.001791 0 0.002798 0.002 0.002838 0.001948 0 0.003043 0.008 0.008107 331.1881 0 87.90421 0.00631 0 0.109218 0.009543 0 0.038745 0.028415 0 0.569782 0.157522 0.456069 2.467901 0.041436 0 0.623836 0.157522 0.456069 2.467901 0.036499 1.368916 0 5.624448 0.003274 0 0.000869San Mateo 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 8.510916 119.4982 119.4982 0 25.11455 1.690269 0 0 0.241464 0 0 0.002 0.00334 0.252382 0 0 0.008 0.009543 418.4363 0 0 0.014886 0 0 0.065925 0 0 0.320488000000.364855000000.0031 1.709562 0 0 0.003965 0 0San Mateo 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 61.93893 2054.9 0 2054.9 294.1870000000.002 0.001538 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043940000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb19.40692 849.1339 406.2744 442.8594 80.24761 0.003074 0 0.117199 0.000413 0 0.001456 0.002 0.001322 0.000449 0 0.001583 0.008 0.003777 129.1531 072.4859 0.000404 0 0.042967 0.000546 0 0.02082 0.001292 0 0.176635 0.024905 0.022892 0.287748 0.001885 0 0.193393 0.024905 0.022892 0.287748 0.020095 0.193011 0 1.37819 0.001277 0 0.000717San Mateo 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 128775.8 4489208 4489208 0 617258.5 0.062575 0 0.324659 0.001272 0 0.002033 0.002 0.002716 0.001384 0 0.002212 0.008 0.007761 343.7915 0 87.85962 0.002639 0 0.081429 0.005428 0 0.036476 0.010335 0 0.378106 0.068121 0.172205 1.07279 0.015078 0 0.413978 0.068121 0.172205 1.07279 0.03686 0.748119 0 3.725451 0.003399 00.000869San Mateo 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 498.9179 17455.1 17455.10 2406.111 0.047726 0 0 0.005147 0 0 0.002 0.002738 0.00538 0 0 0.008 0.007822 317.6065 0 0 0.000624 0 0 0.050039 0 0 0.013436000000.015295000000.0031 0.124515 0 0 0.003009 0 0San Mateo 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 502.691 16536.35 0 16536.35 2591.330000000.002 0.001523 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043530000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb938.5352 39780.13 19647.25 20132.88 3880.843 0.003173 0 0.117199 0.000533 0 0.001824 0.002 0.001316 0.00058 0 0.001984 0.008 0.003761 133.3142 0 78.34077 0.000417 0 0.042967 0.000564 0 0.02082 0.001334 0 0.176635 0.026237 0.024762 0.312901 0.001946 0 0.193393 0.026237 0.024762 0.312901 0.020712 0.199208 0 1.37819 0.001318 0 0.000774San Mateo 2022 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 10003.64 379521.5 379521.5 0 149039.3 0.147855 0.036625 0.627998 0.001475 0 0.00028 0.002 0.0273 0.001604 0 0.000304 0.008 0.078 873.9961 119.3318 27.2104 0.00734 0.115266 0.0324 0.008388 0.003078 0.051835 0.036131 0.419759 0.159081 0.039876 0.21247 2.143205 0.052722 0.612512 0.174174 0.039876 0.21247 2.143205 0.044922 1.060707 3.758503 3.2802 0.00864 0.00118 0.000269San Mateo 2022 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4125.911 163656.9 163656.9 0 51898.77 1.504213 1.931831 0 0.031512 0.027157 0 0.003 0.0273 0.032937 0.028385 0 0.012 0.078 637.8215 131.7515 0 0.007485 0.005098 0 0.1004890.020757 0 0.161141 0.1097600000.183448 0.12495400000.175401 0.431298 0.909745 0 0.006044 0.001248 0San Mateo 2022 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1166.848 41928.69 41928.69 0 17384.3 0.172444 0.036335 0.63879 0.001438 0 0.000256 0.002 0.03185 0.001563 0 0.000279 0.008 0.091 987.4952 138.4793 25.88997 0.006917 0.113246 0.032524 0.010039 0.002938 0.050567 0.032554 0.416435 0.161154 0.042451 0.223651 2.256912 0.047503 0.60766 0.176444 0.042451 0.223651 2.256912 0.044984 0.96909 3.758162 3.27211 0.009762 0.001369 0.000256San Mateo 2022 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1718.365 70077.77 70077.77 0 21614.87 1.063364 1.845339 0 0.026451 0.026962 0 0.003 0.03185 0.027647 0.028181 0 0.012 0.091 760.4369 209.0317 0 0.0066 0.005098 0 0.119807 0.032933 0 0.142091 0.1097600000.161761 0.12495400000.190222 0.33983 0.909745 0 0.007206 0.001981 0San Mateo 2022 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 11775.11 70029.62 70029.62 0 23550.22 0.563376 0 0.148145 0.00188 0 0.003836 0.001 0.0042 0.002007 0 0.00407 0.004 0.012 188.692 0 50.07102 0.159449 0 0.191389 0.038859 0 0.008671 1.054922 0 1.43267 3.559039 3.722371 3.591267 1.259821 0 1.5571563.559039 3.722371 3.591267 0.008767 12.33015 0 7.963377 0.001865 0 0.000495San Mateo 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 72399.54 2561532 2561532 0 344969.9 0.082284 0 0.405736 0.001302 0 0.002201 0.002 0.002736 0.001416 0 0.002394 0.008 0.007817 414.086 0 106.4165 0.003285 0 0.097944 0.006421 0 0.03969 0.013708 0 0.489899 0.078175 0.208676 1.264413 0.019977 0 0.536373 0.078175 0.208676 1.264413 0.037279 0.822259 0 4.057961 0.004094 00.001052San Mateo 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1048.144 37479.46 37479.46 0 5036.896 0.047538 0 0 0.004777 0 0 0.002 0.002777 0.004993 0 0 0.008 0.007934 413.8543 0 0 0.000486 0 0 0.065203 0 0 0.010456000000.011904000000.0031 0.180998 0 0 0.003921 0 0San Mateo 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 497.6274 16375.41 0 16375.41 2565.5980000000.002 0.001523 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043510000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb517.8537 21966.08 11106.12 10859.96 2141.325 0.003248 0 0.117199 0.000662 0 0.002216 0.002 0.001313 0.00072 0 0.00241 0.008 0.003752 136.4653 0 97.81049 0.000428 0 0.043094 0.000581 0 0.020938 0.001365 0 0.176635 0.028658 0.027868 0.344841 0.001992 0 0.193393 0.028658 0.027868 0.344841 0.021235 0.203885 0 1.37819 0.001349 0 0.000967San Mateo 2022 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 751.6488 7043.926 7043.926 0 75.19494 0.465552 0 0.403779 0.001863 0 0.00047 0.003 0.015756 0.002026 0 0.000512 0.012 0.045017 1948.174 0 32.24518 0.017921 0 0.039048 0.027477 0 0.041219 0.080748 0 0.17064 12.70927 0.296989 4.339134 0.117828 0 0.186829 12.70927 0.296989 4.339134 0.044744 2.072946 0 3.847624 0.01926 00.000319San Mateo 2022 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 300.3894 3250.689 3250.6890 30.03894 3.401996 0 0 0.063019 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.065868 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1084.767 0 0 0.00458 0 0 0.170906 0 0 0.09861000000.112261000000.179676 0.315592 0 0 0.010279 0 0San Mateo 2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 756.5401 44483.7 44483.7 0 15136.85 0.604094 0.088245 0.46581 0.00141 0 0.000575 0.003 0.0157560.001534 0 0.000625 0.012 0.045017 1795.462 537.4412 47.64422 0.019663 0.256996 0.051354 0.028235 0.007106 0.034029 0.098372 1.009116 0.2880810.038151 0.314095 2.937981 0.143545 1.4725 0.315413 0.038151 0.314095 2.937981 0.044954 2.080066 15.07471 6.396341 0.01775 0.005313 0.000471San Mateo 2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4156.051 174304 174304 0 49995.69 1.853334 15.89701 1.436117 0.023182 0.047988 0 0.003 0.015983 0.02423 0.050158 0 0.012 0.045666 1163.775 2327.752 0 0.002813 0.013999 0 0.183353 0.366738 0 0.060556 0.30140400000.068939 0.34312600000.193605 0.190383 7.265304 0 0.01102 0.022042 0San Mateo 2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 40.6324 1873.257 1873.257 0 381.7521 0.153851 6.514328 0 0.001104 0.016957 0 0.003 0.016076 0.001201 0.018442 0 0.012 0.045932 1016.708 5323.016 0 0.747144 17.79445 0 0.207263 1.085132 0 0.010675 0.25424800000.762515 18.1605500001.06 3.046292 32.121840000San Mateo 2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 256.1924 15869.04 15869.04 0 5125.898 0.334451 0.065049 0.372974 0.000967 0 0.000281 0.003 0.01568 0.001052 0 0.000306 0.012 0.044799 1762.688 376.5742 30.5752 0.010394 0.20597 0.033776 0.01844 0.005899 0.032179 0.049248 0.746076 0.1668320.02655 0.111811 1.875172 0.071862 1.088672 0.18266 0.02655 0.111811 1.875172 0.044917 1.079968 5.773479 3.517583 0.017426 0.003723 0.000302San Mateo 2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1024.18 74221.67 74221.67 0 10035.19 1.072703 6.342591 1.429669 0.010592 0.00365 0 0.003 0.01742 0.011071 0.003815 0 0.012 0.04977 1257.365 1266.668 0 0.001405 0.014292 0 0.198098 0.199564 0 0.030244 0.30769800000.03443 0.35029100000.210134 0.116655 5.413261 0 0.011906 0.011995 0San Mateo 2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 11.96887 654.3713 654.3713 0 106.5229 0.293719 1.58105 0 0.000566 0.002858 0 0.003 0.016148 0.000615 0.003109 0 0.012 0.046137 1069.812 1202.184 0 0.733013 4.775652 0 0.218088 0.245073 0 0.010473 0.06823500000.748094 4.87390300001.06 3.101343 5.0063280000San Mateo 2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 57.57285 3267.931 3267.931 0 230.2914 0.981493 0.921357 0.655387 0.001299 0 0.000777 0.002 0.015721 0.001412 0 0.000845 0.008 0.044917 807.8108 2570.697 63.52492 0.024786 2.43655 0.092559 0.045477 0.081943 0.056213 0.121107 10.56494 0.538292 0.15493 0.449507 2.231691 0.17672 15.41634 0.589362 0.15493 0.449507 2.231691 0.045 3.134679 81.77802 13.70908 0.007986 0.025414 0.000628San Mateo 2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 168.1521 3799.171 3799.171 0 2434.843 5.308039 24.50088 0.415745 0.025509 0.027927 0 0.003 0.015721 0.026662 0.02919 0 0.012 0.044917 1155.182 2256.975 0 0.003351 0.008427 0 0.181999 0.355587 0 0.072141 0.1814300000.082127 0.20654500000.128799 0.214547 4.164591 0 0.010939 0.021372 0San Mateo 2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 5.747464 147.755 147.755 0 83.22328 0.580038 5.278861 0 0.003378 0.011167 0 0.003 0.015721 0.003674 0.012145 0 0.012 0.044917 1270.028 4071.06 0 3.473989 15.35501 0 0.258904 0.829912 0 0.049636 0.21939300003.545461 15.6709100001.06 11.82462 20.318510000San Mateo 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 61.08139 4153.342 4153.342 0 244.3256 0.052732 0 0.593554 0.000924 0 0.000101 0.002073 0.0323330.001005 0 0.00011 0.00829 0.092379 1026.004 0 41.36564 0.002283 0 0.05585 0.006009 0 0.07764 0.006738 0 0.216361 0.059157 0.09606 0.592841 0.009832 0 0.236888 0.059157 0.09606 0.592841 0.045 0.562776 0 5.939286 0.010143 0 0.000409San Mateo 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 341.0475 28477.87 28477.87 0 1364.19 2.903167 0 0 0.007622 0 0 0.007913 0.0385 0.007966 0 0 0.031652 0.11 1452.079 0 0 0.00732 0 0 0.228776 0 0 0.157595000000.179409000000.12243 0.193248 0 0 0.013759 0 0San Mateo 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2.018703 15.3193 0 15.3193 8.0748110000000.009 0.01925 0 0 0 0.036 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 34.62042 1174.257 1174.257 0 138.4817 0.063543 0 0 0.000296 0 0 0.008807 0.0385 0.00031 0 0 0.035229 0.11 1350.881 0 0 4.451808 0 0 0.275386 0 0 0.063608000004.543397000000.97 52.6410900000
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2023Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.Region Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_DIUR NH3_RUNECO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSan Mateo 2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.303891 593.3265 593.3265 0 86.11225 4.056089 0 0.0028 0.00142 0 0.000834 0.005 0.031149 0.001544 0 0.000907 0.02 0.088996 2258.184 0 54.48492 0.114491 0 0.000118 0.150249 0 0.000135 0.581376 0 0.000638 0.041838 0.335524 2.939257 0.848342 0 0.000699 0.041838 0.335524 2.939257 0.045 33.28789 0 6.069294 0.022324 0 0.000539San Mateo 2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1295.72 119079.6 119079.6 0 14027.66 2.889862 47.02809 2.876808 0.025432 0.037858 0 0.008609 0.030943 0.026582 0.03957 0 0.034434 0.08841 1843.774 8291.615 0 0.001322 0.156217 0 0.290487 1.306347 0 0.028463 3.36331600000.032403 3.82887900000.197741 0.123869 46.58006 0 0.017459 0.078517 0San Mateo 2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.738781 40.81187 040.81187 9.6365890000000.008666 0.01378 0 0 0 0.034663 0.0393720000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 157.5655 10602.72 10602.72 0 1067.368 1.650268 10.1232 0 0.001897 0.012167 0 0.009 0.058575 0.002063 0.013232 0 0.036 0.167357 1522.593 8490.533 0 3.343054 25.56751 0 0.310391 1.730851 0 0.076973 0.41813500003.445109 26.153700000.73711 17.41229 66.412560000San Mateo 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 240378.8 7727537 7727537 0 1129355 0.042338 0 0.260506 0.001198 0 0.002031 0.002 0.002348 0.001303 0 0.002208 0.008 0.006708 276.584 0 70.47869 0.002267 0 0.072534 0.004517 0 0.032351 0.008874 0 0.341649 0.087062 0.222247 1.324707 0.012948 0 0.374061 0.087062 0.222247 1.324707 0.035408 0.677749 0 3.395649 0.002734 00.000697San Mateo 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 833.7612 19906.52 19906.52 0 3528.191 0.213764 0 0 0.014362 0 0 0.002 0.002398 0.015012 0 0 0.008 0.006851 234.4981 0 0 0.001164 0 0 0.036945 0 0 0.02507000000.02854000000.0031 0.317118 0 0 0.002222 0 0San Mateo 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 16299 630419.6 0 630419.6 81240.990000000.002 0.001529 0 0 0 0.008 0.004370000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb6930.414 264587.6 131767.9 132819.8 28657.26 0.003199 0 0.117199 0.000615 0 0.002065 0.002 0.001318 0.000669 0 0.002246 0.008 0.003766 134.4061 065.24503 0.000415 0 0.042451 0.000556 0 0.02034 0.001345 0 0.176635 0.03705 0.032896 0.392427 0.001962 0 0.193393 0.03705 0.032896 0.392427 0.019696 0.200772 0 1.37819 0.001329 0 0.000645San Mateo 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 24557.61 732297.8 732297.8 0 111855.3 0.11638 0 0.364578 0.001649 0 0.002601 0.002 0.002829 0.001794 0 0.002828 0.008 0.008082 324.4279 0 85.42907 0.005448 0 0.099842 0.008499 0 0.037022 0.024289 0 0.513929 0.14557 0.416379 2.294434 0.035435 00.562687 0.14557 0.416379 2.294434 0.037022 1.217988 0 5.093009 0.003207 0 0.000845San Mateo 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 7.655601 101.9185 101.9185 0 22.20173 1.676086 0 0 0.239368 0 0 0.002 0.003332 0.250191 0 0 0.008 0.00952 418.152 0 0 0.014739 0 0 0.06588 0 0 0.317327000000.361255000000.0031 1.688168 0 0 0.003962 0 0San Mateo 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 74.62311 2574.77 0 2574.77 357.95260000000.002 0.001535 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043860000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb34.67073 1451.31 668.3078 783.0024 143.3635 0.002958 0 0.117199 0.000383 0 0.001401 0.002 0.001331 0.000416 0 0.001524 0.008 0.003802 124.2993 0 70.89548 0.000385 0 0.042531 0.000515 0 0.020414 0.001243 0 0.176635 0.024383 0.02158 0.274849 0.001814 0 0.193393 0.024383 0.02158 0.274849 0.01934 0.185749 0 1.37819 0.001229 0 0.000701San Mateo 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 139222.3 4716888 4716888 0 668266.1 0.05408 0 0.29713 0.001207 0 0.001949 0.002 0.002716 0.001313 0 0.002119 0.008 0.007759 334.8986 0 85.30301 0.00237 0 0.075845 0.004959 0 0.034716 0.009113 0 0.347984 0.063629 0.160781 1.007437 0.013297 0 0.380999 0.063629 0.160781 1.007437 0.037748 0.693563 0 3.480515 0.003311 00.000843San Mateo 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 541.6894 18280.98 18280.98 0 2609.031 0.042759 0 0 0.004694 0 0 0.002 0.002739 0.004906 0 0 0.008 0.007825 310.458 0 0 0.000594 0 0 0.048913 0 0 0.012791000000.014562000000.0031 0.121058 0 0 0.002942 0 0San Mateo 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 855.0521 26877.43 026877.43 4389.9340000000.002 0.001524 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb1293.229 52235.96 24959.1 27276.86 5347.502 0.00307 0 0.117199 0.0004780 0.001688 0.002 0.001325 0.00052 0 0.001836 0.008 0.003785 128.97 0 76.74084 0.000399 0 0.042537 0.000535 0 0.02042 0.00129 0 0.176635 0.025663 0.02377 0.299211 0.001883 0 0.193393 0.025663 0.02377 0.299211 0.020047 0.192704 0 1.37819 0.001275 0 0.000759San Mateo 2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 10572.08 392533.1 392533.1 0 157508.2 0.12528 0.035112 0.59784 0.00142 0 0.000253 0.002 0.02730.001545 0 0.000275 0.008 0.078 853.4932 117.883 26.97693 0.006321 0.111177 0.030421 0.00715 0.002997 0.050012 0.03091 0.4025 0.148384 0.0369240.198922 2.014404 0.045104 0.587327 0.162462 0.036924 0.198922 2.014404 0.044937 0.986439 3.761565 3.318076 0.008438 0.001165 0.000267San Mateo 2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4577.109 179686.5 179686.5 0 57574.27 1.224717 1.76206 0 0.0273 0.026942 0 0.003 0.0273 0.028534 0.02816 0 0.012 0.078 630.6192 129.0392 0 0.006697 0.005098 0 0.099354 0.02033 0 0.144187 0.1097600000.164147 0.12495400000.184546 0.371953 0.909745 0 0.005975 0.001223 0San Mateo 2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1231.236 43549.94 43549.94 0 18343.59 0.144 0.03443 0.605262 0.001368 0 0.000226 0.002 0.031850.001487 0 0.000246 0.008 0.091 963.6905 136.6851 25.60031 0.005686 0.108022 0.030291 0.008533 0.002829 0.048554 0.026382 0.394722 0.148891 0.038757 0.204501 2.085419 0.038496 0.575977 0.163017 0.038757 0.204501 2.085419 0.044989 0.878989 3.762499 3.300689 0.009527 0.001351 0.000253San Mateo 2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1952.709 77798.97 77798.97 0 24562.62 0.883685 1.679482 0 0.023677 0.026872 0 0.003 0.03185 0.024747 0.028087 0 0.012 0.091 747.9998 204.9987 0 0.006098 0.005098 0 0.117848 0.032298 0 0.131288 0.1097600000.149463 0.12495400000.196309 0.303972 0.909745 0 0.007088 0.001942 0San Mateo 2023 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 12536.77 73820.04 73820.04 0 25073.54 0.537143 0 0.136291 0.001883 0 0.003663 0.001 0.0042 0.002012 0 0.003894 0.004 0.012 187.6396 0 47.90752 0.151085 0 0.181429 0.0377350 0.008068 0.98245 0 1.347169 3.555217 3.717102 3.435381 1.181139 0 1.464498 3.555217 3.717102 3.435381 0.008844 11.57445 0 7.838613 0.001855 0 0.000474San Mateo 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 78398.02 2704273 2704273 0 374408 0.068743 0 0.362909 0.001222 0 0.002069 0.002 0.002734 0.0013290 0.002251 0.008 0.00781 403.6262 0 103.3496 0.002844 0 0.089064 0.0057030 0.037349 0.01161 0 0.437746 0.072395 0.194625 1.190411 0.016926 0 0.479274 0.072395 0.194625 1.190411 0.038092 0.747341 0 3.739188 0.00399 0 0.001022San Mateo 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1107.903 37908.13 37908.13 0 5305.818 0.04176 0 0 0.004328 0 0 0.002 0.002788 0.004524 0 0 0.008 0.007965 406.2615 0 0 0.000449 0 0 0.064007 0 0 0.009665000000.011002000000.0031 0.175602 0 0 0.00385 0 0San Mateo 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 906.5115 28548.82 0 28548.82 4657.0210000000.002 0.001524 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043540000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb678.1174 27547.88 13448.47 14099.41 2804.015 0.003136 0 0.117199 0.000578 0 0.002002 0.002 0.001322 0.000628 0 0.002177 0.008 0.003776 131.7621 095.52682 0.000409 0 0.04268 0.00055 0 0.020553 0.001318 0 0.176635 0.027976 0.026258 0.325091 0.001923 0 0.193393 0.027976 0.026258 0.325091 0.020504 0.196851 0 1.37819 0.001303 0 0.000944San Mateo 2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 774.8115 7442.976 7442.976 0 77.51215 0.375927 0 0.404893 0.001719 0 0.000436 0.003 0.015756 0.001869 0 0.000474 0.012 0.045017 1947.17 0 31.89355 0.01417 0 0.038105 0.023764 0 0.042528 0.061382 0 0.16244 11.11371 0.261936 3.902966 0.089569 0 0.177852 11.11371 0.261936 3.902966 0.044861 1.492455 0 3.64337 0.01925 0 0.000315San Mateo 2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 328.5822 3487.262 3487.2620 32.85822 3.229197 0 0 0.055455 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.057962 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1085.349 0 0 0.004377 0 0 0.170997 0 0 0.094242000000.107288000000.185977 0.297993 0 0 0.010284 0 0San Mateo 2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 780.1924 45998.29 45998.29 0 15610.09 0.48063 0.088485 0.45368 0.001377 0 0.000542 0.003 0.015756 0.001498 0 0.00059 0.012 0.045017 1763.945 530.3326 46.39494 0.0155190.261469 0.049092 0.023565 0.00737 0.034436 0.076573 1.012695 0.2705740.033571 0.274671 2.598982 0.111736 1.477722 0.296245 0.033571 0.274671 2.598982 0.044979 1.599932 15.11623 5.97113 0.017438 0.005243 0.000459San Mateo 2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4189.443 175901.2 175901.2 0 50462.49 1.42648 14.09475 1.586053 0.018782 0.040011 0 0.003 0.015983 0.019631 0.041821 0 0.012 0.045665 1155.919 2264.351 0 0.002009 0.012779 0 0.182115 0.356749 0 0.043248 0.27512100000.049234 0.31320500000.206918 0.148734 7.579195 0 0.010946 0.021442 0San Mateo 2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2.059294 44.11104 044.11104 25.565960000000.003 0.007991 0 0 0 0.012 0.0228330000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 38.13508 1832.77 1832.77 0 342.2075 0.132951 6.609544 0 0.001228 0.018659 0 0.003 0.016094 0.001336 0.020293 0 0.012 0.045982 1008.408 5458.884 0 0.769477 17.52611 0 0.20557 1.112829 0 0.010994 0.25041400000.785307 17.8866800001.06 3.064735 35.818030000San Mateo 2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 256.5607 15177.04 15177.04 0 5133.267 0.308106 0.065063 0.369453 0.001 0 0.000287 0.003 0.015680.001088 0 0.000312 0.012 0.044799 1742.276 373.6354 30.27704 0.009595 0.205564 0.033157 0.017281 0.005903 0.031894 0.045405 0.746279 0.1638780.026481 0.113352 1.902307 0.066255 1.088969 0.179425 0.026481 0.113352 1.902307 0.044919 0.985887 5.774707 3.460301 0.017224 0.003694 0.000299San Mateo 2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1051.799 74746.95 74746.95 0 10288.18 0.843686 5.779548 1.508936 0.009565 0.003378 0 0.003 0.017376 0.009998 0.003531 0 0.012 0.049647 1250.895 1225.784 0 0.000947 0.013995 0 0.197079 0.193123 0 0.020398 0.30131300000.023222 0.34302200000.217631 0.094166 5.629794 0 0.011845 0.011607 0San Mateo 2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 6.660994 415.1452 415.1452 0 59.28285 0.232948 1.556882 0 0.000856 0.003435 0 0.003 0.016148 0.000931 0.003736 0 0.012 0.046137 1029.36 1194.248 0 0.766347 4.477255 0 0.209842 0.243455 0 0.01095 0.06397100000.782113 4.56936700001.06 3.19115 6.3060960000San Mateo 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 62.11288 3411.923 3411.923 0 248.4515 0.897656 0.923288 0.643317 0.001164 0 0.000721 0.002 0.015721 0.001266 0 0.000784 0.008 0.044917 797.3184 2541.99 62.30631 0.021738 2.445799 0.089765 0.041731 0.084017 0.05658 0.106456 10.59413 0.521132 0.139121 0.406864 2.094566 0.15534 15.45893 0.570574 0.139121 0.406864 2.094566 0.045 2.707181 81.95312 13.2835 0.007882 0.02513 0.000616San Mateo 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 168.8118 3793.041 3793.041 0 2444.395 5.00314 23.87172 0.437587 0.023953 0.025817 0 0.003 0.015721 0.025036 0.026985 0 0.012 0.044917 1149.738 2246.853 0 0.003233 0.008312 0 0.181142 0.353993 0 0.069615 0.17896400000.079252 0.20373700000.134019 0.208594 4.289616 0 0.010887 0.021276 0San Mateo 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.041475 0.481131 00.481131 0.6005640000000.003 0.00786 0 0 0 0.012 0.0224590000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 6.023036 153.4041 153.4041 0 87.21356 0.556332 5.264261 0 0.003378 0.011516 0 0.003 0.015721 0.003674 0.012524 0 0.012 0.044917 1258.036 4080.42 0 3.408583 15.17474 0 0.256459 0.83182 0 0.048702 0.21681700003.478709 15.4869400001.06 11.51682 21.103710000San Mateo 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 61.26278 4165.676 4165.676 0 245.0511 0.037017 0 0.578233 0.000989 0 0.000127 0.002073 0.0323330.001076 0 0.000139 0.00829 0.092379 1025.682 0 41.23868 0.002259 0 0.053565 0.004956 0 0.077039 0.006631 0 0.206281 0.070589 0.114555 0.693653 0.009677 0 0.225852 0.070589 0.114555 0.693653 0.045 0.556154 0 5.887541 0.01014 0 0.000408San Mateo 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 341.8463 28540.62 28540.62 0 1367.385 2.897593 0 0 0.007619 0 0 0.007913 0.0385 0.007964 0 0 0.0316520.11 1451.453 0 0 0.007311 0 0 0.228677 0 0 0.157395000000.179182000000.122644 0.192989 0 0 0.013753 0 0San Mateo 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2.018703 15.3193 0 15.3193 8.0748110000000.009 0.01925 0 0 0 0.036 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 34.94319 1199.611 1199.611 0 139.7728 0.063405 0 0 0.000296 0 0 0.008789 0.0385 0.000309 0 0 0.035157 0.11 1349.38 0 0 4.445831 0 0 0.27508 0 0 0.063522000004.537297000000.97 52.5367100000
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2024Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.Region Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_DIUR NH3_RUNECO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSan Mateo 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.38411 570.1519 570.1519 0 87.71727 4.048188 0 0.002195 0.001412 0 0.000781 0.005 0.031087 0.001536 0 0.000849 0.02 0.08882 2242.616 0 52.51813 0.114927 0 9.83E‐05 0.151409 0 0.000106 0.580011 0 0.000534 0.038164 0.298441 2.621146 0.84635 0 0.000584 0.038164 0.298441 2.621146 0.045 33.76595 0 5.064106 0.022171 0 0.000519San Mateo 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1314.625 119489.1 119489.1 0 14359.46 2.758523 46.36193 2.948259 0.025016 0.035273 0 0.008607 0.030666 0.026147 0.036868 0 0.034429 0.087616 1815.874 8218.84 0 0.001264 0.157243 0 0.286092 1.294882 0 0.027205 3.38540400000.030971 3.85402400000.19939 0.118425 47.19978 0 0.017195 0.077828 0San Mateo 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 4.22305 364.2879 0 364.2879 41.83420000000.008582 0.016829 0 0 0 0.034329 0.0480820000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 168.5495 11187.83 11187.83 0 1132.175 1.492552 9.520927 0 0.001788 0.012243 0 0.009 0.059336 0.001944 0.013315 0 0.036 0.169533 1498.953 8407.645 0 3.081874 24.13874 00.305571 1.713953 0 0.069062 0.38954400003.173794 24.6862200000.729125 16.65962 64.843980000San Mateo 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 239419.7 7454000 7454000 0 1124271 0.038087 0 0.247841 0.001162 0 0.001964 0.002 0.002348 0.001263 0 0.002136 0.008 0.006709 270.9813 0 68.88096 0.002038 0 0.068169 0.004236 0 0.031309 0.007847 0 0.318313 0.083377 0.213338 1.277502 0.01145 0 0.348512 0.083377 0.213338 1.277502 0.036176 0.637775 0 3.199778 0.002679 00.000681San Mateo 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 770.443 17557.03 17557.030 3247.138 0.188593 0 0 0.01271 0 0 0.002 0.002404 0.013285 0 0 0.008 0.006869 232.2271 0 0 0.001054 0 0 0.036587 0 0 0.022696000000.025838000000.0031 0.304144 0 0 0.0022 0 0San Mateo 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 17934.86 689392.1 0 689392.1 89072.050000000.002 0.00153 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043710000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb7500.936 275231.1 133857.4 141373.7 31016.37 0.003125 0 0.117199 0.000577 0 0.001988 0.002 0.001324 0.000628 0 0.002162 0.008 0.003783 131.2547 064.21414 0.000402 0 0.042117 0.000534 0 0.020029 0.001313 0 0.176635 0.037635 0.03379 0.393665 0.001916 0 0.193393 0.037635 0.03379 0.393665 0.0194 0.196055 0 1.37819 0.001298 0 0.000635San Mateo 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 25010.05 728708.6 728708.6 0 114230.1 0.101175 0 0.337766 0.001531 0 0.002433 0.002 0.002823 0.001665 0 0.002647 0.008 0.008066 317.5486 0 83.06159 0.004741 0 0.091509 0.007635 0 0.035447 0.020943 0 0.464929 0.13393 0.378571 2.119435 0.0305570 0.509038 0.13393 0.378571 2.119435 0.03751 1.098083 0 4.642443 0.003139 0 0.000821San Mateo 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6.907674 87.50597 87.50597 0 19.69868 1.656035 0 0 0.236493 0 0 0.002 0.003323 0.247186 0 0 0.008 0.009495 417.4053 0 0 0.014564 0 0 0.065762 0 0 0.313559000000.356966000000.0031 1.668132 0 0 0.003955 0 0San Mateo 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 91.59654 3278.131 03278.131 443.54420000000.002 0.001533 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043810000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb54.25069 2174.893 971.2907 1203.602 224.3266 0.002869 0 0.117199 0.000364 0 0.001376 0.002 0.001338 0.000396 0 0.001496 0.008 0.003823 120.5464 069.35514 0.00037 0 0.042142 0.000491 0 0.020052 0.001206 0 0.176635 0.024003 0.020809 0.269408 0.00176 0 0.193393 0.024003 0.020809 0.269408 0.018757 0.180131 0 1.37819 0.001192 0 0.000686San Mateo 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 149536 4914901 49149010 718035.6 0.047837 0 0.275637 0.001155 0 0.001881 0.002 0.002719 0.001256 0 0.002046 0.008 0.007768 326.4023 0 82.90242 0.002154 0 0.070859 0.004613 0 0.03323 0.008159 0 0.321903 0.059457 0.151098 0.950815 0.011906 0 0.352443 0.059457 0.151098 0.950815 0.038479 0.65082 0 3.265171 0.003227 0 0.00082San Mateo 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 582.1748 18954.02 18954.02 0 2798.233 0.039602 0 0 0.004525 0 0 0.002 0.002742 0.00473 0 0 0.008 0.007835 303.3367 0 0 0.000583 0 0 0.047791 0 0 0.012549000000.014287000000.0031 0.119356 0 0 0.002874 0 0San Mateo 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1250.957 37598.89 037598.89 6394.2450000000.002 0.001525 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043580000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb1631.391 62724.85 29203.5 33521.35 6745.803 0.002991 0 0.117199 0.000445 0 0.001613 0.002 0.001331 0.000484 0 0.001754 0.008 0.003803 125.6641 0 75.33035 0.000385 0 0.042141 0.000512 0 0.020051 0.001257 0 0.176635 0.025289 0.023061 0.291714 0.001834 0 0.193393 0.025289 0.023061 0.291714 0.019538 0.187751 0 1.37819 0.001242 0 0.000745San Mateo 2024 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 11110.29 401258.4 401258.4 0 165526.8 0.108054 0.033789 0.571117 0.001381 0 0.000231 0.002 0.0273 0.001502 0 0.000252 0.008 0.078 836.8766 116.5649 26.73629 0.005557 0.107506 0.028745 0.006197 0.00292 0.048292 0.02703 0.387394 0.139437 0.033968 0.18488 1.873078 0.039443 0.565284 0.152666 0.033968 0.18488 1.873078 0.044949 0.932434 3.763967 3.345475 0.008273 0.001152 0.000264San Mateo 2024 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4996.692 191551.4 191551.4 0 62852.09 1.027551 1.628055 0 0.024469 0.026784 0 0.003 0.0273 0.025575 0.027995 0 0.012 0.078 625.1858 126.8159 0 0.006142 0.005098 0 0.0984980.01998 0 0.132227 0.1097600000.150532 0.12495400000.191039 0.331515 0.909745 0 0.005924 0.001202 0San Mateo 2024 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 56.88552 3530.6420 3530.642 794.65460000000.002 0.01365 0 0 0 0.008 0.0390000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1289.385 44551.76 44551.76 0 19209.92 0.122228 0.032802 0.574333 0.001317 0 0.000203 0.002 0.03185 0.001432 0 0.00022 0.008 0.091 944.5417 135.0667 25.31696 0.004775 0.10351 0.028373 0.007371 0.002735 0.046606 0.02185 0.376166 0.138457 0.035403 0.189345 1.948594 0.031883 0.5489 0.151593 0.035403 0.189345 1.948594 0.04499 0.81417 3.766002 3.313222 0.009338 0.001335 0.00025San Mateo 2024 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2173.662 83732.44 83732.44 0 27341.93 0.758817 1.552593 0 0.021905 0.026813 0 0.003 0.03185 0.022896 0.028026 0 0.012 0.091 738.893 201.7788 0 0.00575 0.005098 0 0.116413 0.03179 0 0.123794 0.1097600000.140931 0.12495400000.200587 0.280863 0.909745 0 0.007001 0.001912 0San Mateo 2024 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 14.72375 865.83830 865.8383 194.89790000000.002 0.015925 0 0 0 0.008 0.04550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 13263.89 76675.37 76675.37 0 26527.78 0.518793 0 0.126152 0.001881 0 0.003482 0.001 0.0042 0.002012 0 0.003708 0.004 0.012 186.9256 0 46.09461 0.145168 0 0.173078 0.0369690 0.007549 0.930365 0 1.275208 3.551353 3.70872 3.28364 1.125127 0 1.386524 3.551353 3.70872 3.28364 0.008901 11.0461 0 7.750076 0.001848 0 0.000456San Mateo 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 84173.19 2823183 2823183 0 402441.6 0.058434 0 0.328591 0.001156 0 0.001958 0.002 0.002737 0.001258 0 0.002129 0.008 0.007819 393.5743 0 100.4473 0.002492 0 0.08141 0.005161 0 0.035386 0.009941 0 0.393656 0.066904 0.180975 1.115277 0.014501 0 0.431003 0.066904 0.180975 1.115277 0.038746 0.686178 0 3.45873 0.003891 00.000993San Mateo 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1163.667 38157.5 38157.5 05552.1 0.037261 0 0 0.004001 0 0 0.002 0.002798 0.004182 0 0 0.008 0.007995 398.2713 0 0 0.000421 0 0 0.062748 0 0 0.009074000000.01033000000.0031 0.171126 0 0 0.003774 0 0San Mateo 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1347.217 40547.66 0 40547.66 6889.4150000000.002 0.001525 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043570000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb894.3672 35015.17 16467.11 18548.06 3698.208 0.003021 0 0.117199 0.000509 0 0.001829 0.002 0.00133 0.000553 0 0.001989 0.008 0.0038 126.9296 0 92.90761 0.000391 0 0.042289 0.000521 0 0.020188 0.00127 0 0.176635 0.0281150.024943 0.310017 0.001853 0 0.193393 0.028115 0.024943 0.310017 0.019752 0.189627 0 1.37819 0.001255 0 0.000918San Mateo 2024 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 801.8479 7786.339 7786.339 0 80.21686 0.31412 0 0.403344 0.001626 0 0.000414 0.003 0.015756 0.001768 0 0.00045 0.012 0.045017 1946.554 0 31.59379 0.011734 0 0.037106 0.021154 0 0.043344 0.049091 0 0.154768 9.691274 0.229932 3.473479 0.071633 0 0.169451 9.691274 0.229932 3.473479 0.044918 1.137792 0 3.470688 0.0192440 0.000312San Mateo 2024 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 356.6509 3693.518 3693.5180 35.66509 3.096233 0 0 0.049578 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.05182 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1085.795 0 0 0.004225 0 0 0.171067 0 0 0.090961000000.103553000000.190835 0.284597 0 0 0.010288 0 0San Mateo 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 803.5707 46997.14 46997.14 0 16077.84 0.392706 0.088662 0.440106 0.001362 0 0.000524 0.003 0.015756 0.001481 0 0.00057 0.012 0.045017 1738.217 524.0271 45.30167 0.012668 0.264735 0.046933 0.020191 0.007577 0.034475 0.061766 1.015329 0.254725 0.030087 0.246862 2.353612 0.090129 1.481566 0.278892 0.030087 0.246862 2.353612 0.044986 1.274083 15.14683 5.603458 0.017184 0.005181 0.000448San Mateo 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4233.233 177028 177028 0 51051.04 1.307284 13.57456 1.607655 0.016259 0.033511 0 0.003 0.015983 0.016994 0.035026 0 0.012 0.045664 1151.344 2248.491 0 0.001748 0.011985 0 0.181395 0.354251 0 0.037635 0.25804300000.042845 0.29376300000.208724 0.13444 7.547588 0 0.010903 0.021292 0San Mateo 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 14.28233 871.0875 0871.0875 206.31190000000.003 0.007951 0 0 0 0.012 0.0227180000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 40.94682 1935.863 1935.863 0 369.2827 0.126627 6.578363 0 0.00126 0.019031 0 0.003 0.016095 0.001371 0.020698 0 0.012 0.045986 1003.333 5452.112 0 0.773152 17.27614 0 0.204536 1.111449 0 0.011047 0.24684200000.789058 17.6315700001.06 3.066853 36.670550000San Mateo 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 254.1967 14438.68 14438.68 0 5085.967 0.276687 0.065109 0.370674 0.00102 0 0.000283 0.003 0.01568 0.00111 0 0.000308 0.012 0.044799 1723.101 370.7574 29.97676 0.0084780.205512 0.032818 0.016007 0.005919 0.031879 0.039535 0.746984 0.162428 0.025788 0.11331 1.92621 0.05769 1.089998 0.177838 0.025788 0.11331 1.92621 0.044947 0.847792 5.778931 3.396221 0.017035 0.003665 0.000296San Mateo 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1077.493 75002.36 75002.36 0 10539.7 0.835238 5.759378 1.510482 0.009497 0.003284 0 0.003 0.017376 0.009927 0.003433 0 0.012 0.049647 1241.911 1216.11 0 0.000936 0.0139850 0.195664 0.191599 0 0.020157 0.30109300000.022947 0.34277200000.217754 0.093918 5.631167 0 0.01176 0.011516 0San Mateo 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.873406 79.58076 079.58076 17.475120000000.003 0.00784 0 0 0 0.012 0.0223990000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 7.797528 492.5585 492.5585 0 69.398 0.196374 1.542446 0 0.001031 0.003779 0 0.003 0.016148 0.001121 0.00411 0 0.012 0.046137 1012.331 1198.177 0 0.786409 4.299019 0 0.20637 0.244256 0 0.011236 0.06142400000.802588 4.38746400001.06 3.2452 7.0824620000San Mateo 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 66.88141 3561.549 3561.549 0 267.5256 0.835223 0.92382 0.639831 0.001152 0 0.000724 0.002 0.015721 0.001252 0 0.000787 0.008 0.044917 789.442 2519.886 61.00487 0.019632.446302 0.087874 0.039135 0.085207 0.056875 0.09611 10.60191 0.5098050.133122 0.399591 2.076885 0.140243 15.47029 0.558173 0.133122 0.399591 2.076885 0.045 2.460202 82.00038 12.72081 0.007804 0.024912 0.000603San Mateo 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 168.96 3777.202 3777.2020 2446.541 4.696712 23.20536 0.459253 0.022409 0.023726 0 0.003 0.0157210.023422 0.024798 0 0.012 0.044917 1144.311 2236.593 0 0.003112 0.0082080 0.180287 0.352376 0 0.067 0.17671600000.076275 0.20117700000.139187 0.202372 4.417573 0 0.010836 0.021179 0San Mateo 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.90883 36.62057 0 36.62057 8.1402170000000.002304 0.00786 0 0 0 0.009214 0.0224590000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 6.288614 158.6097 158.6097 0 91.05913 0.535215 5.251389 0 0.003378 0.011823 0 0.003 0.015721 0.003674 0.012858 0 0.012 0.044917 1247.354 4088.672 0 3.35032 15.01581 0 0.254281 0.833502 0 0.047869 0.21454600003.419247 15.3247400001.06 11.24264 21.795980000San Mateo 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 61.44418 4178.01 4178.01 0 245.7767 0.036235 0 0.500251 0.001083 0 0.000148 0.002073 0.032333 0.001178 0 0.000161 0.00829 0.092379 1002.317 0 40.2745 0.00211 0 0.046538 0.004853 0 0.069658 0.006117 0 0.175043 0.050072 0.096281 0.505947 0.008925 0 0.19165 0.050072 0.096281 0.505947 0.045 0.556675 0 6.169996 0.009909 0 0.000398San Mateo 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 277.5893 21477.78 21477.78 0 1110.357 0.375565 0 0 0.006827 0 0 0.008097 0.0385 0.007136 0 0 0.0323880.11 1223.727 0 0 0.003145 0 0 0.192799 0 0 0.067719000000.077093000000.22 0.077195 0 0 0.011595 0 0San Mateo 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 37.0794 3851.303 0 3851.303 148.31760000000.007366 0.01925 0 0 0 0.029466 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 65.26114 4514.573 4514.573 0 261.0446 0.055424 0 0 0.000272 0 0 0.007741 0.0385 0.000285 0 0 0.030963 0.11 1262.656 0 0 4.100531 0 0 0.257401 0 0 0.058588000004.184893000000.97 46.5063300000
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2025Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.Region Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_DIUR NH3_RUNECO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSan Mateo 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.335984 539.4434 539.4434 0 86.75436 3.993891 0 0.002022 0.001378 0 0.00069 0.005 0.031006 0.001498 0 0.000751 0.02 0.088589 2223.743 0 51.99251 0.111171 0 9.85E‐05 0.151221 0 0.000104 0.548787 0 0.000535 0.032327 0.240688 2.160104 0.800789 00.000585 0.032327 0.240688 2.160104 0.045 33.0787 0 5.031545 0.021984 0 0.000514San Mateo 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1328.41 119560.7 119560.7 0 14621.91 2.632025 45.4127 3.000431 0.02461 0.033159 0 0.008607 0.030397 0.025723 0.034658 0 0.034427 0.086848 1783.935 8133.144 0 0.001211 0.15815 0 0.28106 1.28138 0 0.02607 3.40492800000.029679 3.87625200000.201044 0.113335 47.75386 0 0.016893 0.077016 0San Mateo 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 10.02384 901.0022 0901.0022 96.277970000000.008517 0.017099 0 0 0 0.034067 0.0488540000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 180.5549 11842.66 11842.66 0 1200.105 1.331412 8.859598 0 0.001692 0.012232 0 0.009 0.060148 0.00184 0.013304 0 0.036 0.171851 1473.274 8308.135 0 2.792898 22.57518 0 0.300337 1.693668 0 0.061153 0.36000700002.874566 23.082300000.720658 15.82056 63.04070000San Mateo 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 238618 7185689 7185689 01119872 0.034615 0 0.235851 0.001128 0 0.001911 0.002 0.002349 0.001227 00.002078 0.008 0.00671 265.0863 0 67.26068 0.001838 0 0.063866 0.004 0 0.030182 0.006975 0 0.296397 0.080623 0.207795 1.246636 0.010177 0 0.3245170.080623 0.207795 1.246636 0.036919 0.602664 0 3.018989 0.002621 0 0.000665San Mateo 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 710.5834 15407.46 15407.46 0 2980.227 0.166025 0 0 0.01142 0 0 0.002 0.00241 0.011937 0 0 0.008 0.006884 229.7322 0 0 0.00097 0 0 0.036194 0 0 0.020877000000.023767000000.0031 0.292415 0 0 0.002177 0 0San Mateo 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 19564.98 745853.8 0 745853.8 96825.510000000.002 0.001531 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043730000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb8044.117 283509.4 134548.1 148961.4 33262.42 0.003049 0 0.117199 0.000543 0 0.001919 0.002 0.00133 0.000591 0 0.002087 0.008 0.0038 128.0771 0 63.14069 0.00039 0 0.041777 0.000513 0 0.019713 0.001281 0 0.176635 0.0379740.033851 0.389847 0.00187 0 0.193393 0.037974 0.033851 0.389847 0.019071 0.1913 0 1.37819 0.001266 0 0.000624San Mateo 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 25473.09 722986.2 722986.2 0 116608.1 0.088465 0 0.313819 0.001428 0 0.002288 0.002 0.002819 0.001554 0 0.002489 0.008 0.008056 310.5241 0 80.75369 0.004138 0 0.083876 0.006908 0 0.033921 0.018105 0 0.421017 0.123314 0.343281 1.948219 0.026418 0 0.460961 0.123314 0.343281 1.948219 0.037997 0.996198 0 4.245316 0.00307 0 0.000798San Mateo 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6.297196 75.91061 75.91061 0 17.6629 1.633241 0 0 0.233227 0 0 0.002 0.003314 0.243773 0 0 0.008 0.009467 416.405 0 0 0.014366 0 0 0.065605 0 0 0.309282000000.352097000000.0031 1.645498 0 0 0.003946 0 0San Mateo 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 114.3013 4207.979 04207.979 557.93940000000.002 0.001532 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043760000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb78.69736 3019.599 1309.635 1709.964 325.4136 0.002786 0 0.117199 0.00035 0 0.001361 0.002 0.001345 0.000381 0 0.00148 0.008 0.003842 117.0671 0 67.81017 0.000356 0 0.041758 0.000468 0 0.019694 0.001171 0 0.176635 0.023751 0.020249 0.266848 0.001709 0 0.193393 0.023751 0.020249 0.266848 0.018216 0.174923 0 1.37819 0.001157 0 0.00067San Mateo 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 159673.6 5072144 5072144 0 766397.2 0.043155 0 0.259038 0.001111 0 0.001824 0.002 0.002725 0.001208 0 0.001983 0.008 0.007785 318.166 0 80.62425 0.001976 0 0.066383 0.004349 0 0.031999 0.007386 0 0.299178 0.056614 0.145016 0.911896 0.010777 0 0.327563 0.056614 0.145016 0.911896 0.039093 0.616696 0 3.075211 0.003145 0 0.000797San Mateo 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 618.9276 19447.24 19447.24 0 2972.356 0.035316 0 0 0.004147 0 0 0.002 0.002746 0.004334 0 0 0.008 0.007845 295.9024 0 0 0.00056 0 0 0.04662 0 0 0.012057000000.013726000000.0031 0.116837 0 0 0.002804 0 0San Mateo 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1700.502 48819.4 0 48819.4 8654.2220000000.002 0.001526 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043610000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb1989.466 72787.26 33032.95 39754.31 8226.444 0.002916 0 0.117199 0.00042 0 0.00156 0.002 0.001337 0.000457 0 0.001696 0.008 0.003821 122.4885 0 73.88529 0.000372 0 0.041746 0.00049 0 0.019683 0.001225 0 0.176635 0.025353 0.02271 0.287953 0.001788 0 0.193393 0.025353 0.02271 0.287953 0.019048 0.182994 0 1.37819 0.001211 0 0.00073San Mateo 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 11613.82 405927.2 405927.2 0 173028.5 0.093969 0.032618 0.546788 0.00135 0 0.000213 0.002 0.0273 0.001468 0 0.000231 0.008 0.078 823.2657 115.3954 26.50069 0.004903 0.104178 0.027302 0.005418 0.002847 0.046638 0.023679 0.374027 0.131854 0.03142 0.171421 1.736909 0.034552 0.545779 0.144364 0.03142 0.171421 1.736909 0.044961 0.885236 3.766067 3.36368 0.008139 0.001141 0.000262San Mateo 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 5396.711 200335.3 200335.3 0 67883.84 0.878137 1.51814 0 0.022391 0.026666 0 0.003 0.0273 0.023404 0.027871 0 0.012 0.078 621.1678 124.9932 0 0.005716 0.005098 0 0.097865 0.019693 0 0.123053 0.1097600000.140088 0.12495400000.196014 0.301645 0.909745 0 0.005886 0.001184 0San Mateo 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 157.5841 8786.5460 8786.546 2203.7750000000.002 0.01365 0 0 0 0.008 0.0390000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1342.429 45031.5 45031.5 0 20000.19 0.105135 0.031386 0.546043 0.001282 0 0.000185 0.002 0.03185 0.001395 0 0.000201 0.008 0.091 929.119 133.658 25.05861 0.00412 0.099506 0.026702 0.006445 0.00265 0.044736 0.018664 0.360001 0.12953 0.032846 0.178071 1.845904 0.027234 0.525313 0.141819 0.032846 0.178071 1.845904 0.044991 0.769359 3.768677 3.317456 0.009185 0.001321 0.000248San Mateo 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2386.592 88314.97 88314.97 0 30020.32 0.665843 1.451157 0 0.020707 0.02679 0 0.003 0.03185 0.021644 0.028001 0 0.012 0.091 732.0694 199.191 0 0.00549 0.005098 0 0.115338 0.031383 0 0.118205 0.1097600000.134569 0.12495400000.203813 0.264963 0.909745 0 0.006937 0.001887 0San Mateo 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 40.48817 2145.2240 2145.224 536.91310000000.002 0.015925 0 0 0 0.008 0.04550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 13994.78 78703.42 78703.42 0 27989.55 0.505421 0 0.117673 0.001897 0 0.003489 0.001 0.0042 0.002031 0 0.003719 0.004 0.012 186.4281 0 44.64197 0.140818 0 0.16646 0.036419 00.007111 0.891986 0 1.219242 3.548067 3.701315 3.154868 1.084139 0 1.325883 3.548067 3.701315 3.154868 0.008947 10.66577 0 7.691483 0.001843 0 0.000441San Mateo 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 89810.74 2915872 2915872 0 429459.7 0.050748 0 0.301319 0.001104 0 0.001871 0.002 0.002743 0.00120 0.002035 0.008 0.007838 383.757 0 97.70306 0.002219 0 0.074825 0.0047490 0.03376 0.008671 0 0.356712 0.062664 0.169351 1.048331 0.012652 0 0.390555 0.062664 0.169351 1.048331 0.039288 0.640699 0 3.225835 0.003794 0 0.000966San Mateo 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1216.213 38222.55 38222.55 0 5783.756 0.033166 0 0 0.003666 0 0 0.002 0.002807 0.003832 0 0 0.008 0.008021 389.8225 0 0 0.000395 0 0 0.061417 0 0 0.008497000000.009674000000.0031 0.166794 0 0 0.003694 0 0San Mateo 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1824.97 52408.32 0 52408.32 9288.7460000000.002 0.001526 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043610000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb1131.124 42471.44 19328.41 23143.04 4677.198 0.002924 0 0.117199 0.000462 0 0.001715 0.002 0.001337 0.000502 0 0.001865 0.008 0.003821 122.8274 090.54251 0.000374 0 0.041896 0.000495 0 0.019823 0.001229 0 0.176635 0.027524 0.023796 0.299651 0.001793 0 0.193393 0.027524 0.023796 0.299651 0.019114 0.183493 0 1.37819 0.001214 0 0.000895San Mateo 2025 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 830.5401 8053.177 8053.177 0 83.08723 0.268304 0 0.400493 0.001562 0 0.000397 0.003 0.015756 0.001698 0 0.000432 0.012 0.045017 1946.149 0 31.33114 0.010026 0 0.036115 0.019184 0 0.043891 0.040666 0 0.147699 8.452557 0.201566 3.076801 0.05934 0 0.161711 8.452557 0.201566 3.076801 0.044943 0.905305 0 3.320123 0.019240 0.00031San Mateo 2025 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 384.5125 3863.222 3863.2220 38.45125 2.990063 0 0 0.044795 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.04682 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1086.155 0 0 0.004106 0 0 0.171124 0 0 0.088396000000.100633000000.194759 0.273956 0 0 0.010292 0 0San Mateo 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 825.6427 47612.58 47612.58 0 16519.46 0.323037 0.085434 0.420472 0.001351 0 0.000505 0.003 0.015756 0.00147 0 0.00055 0.012 0.045017 1716.102 518.1406 44.32653 0.010425 0.267434 0.04506 0.017424 0.007433 0.033886 0.050062 1.017725 0.241229 0.026732 0.218345 2.098508 0.073051 1.485063 0.264116 0.026732 0.218345 2.098508 0.044995 1.017203 15.17464 5.286069 0.016965 0.005122 0.000438San Mateo 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4294.917 177557.8 177557.8 0 51845.95 1.188939 12.87917 1.614768 0.013944 0.027675 0 0.003 0.015982 0.014575 0.028927 0 0.012 0.045664 1145.121 2228.697 0 0.001506 0.011276 0 0.180414 0.351132 0 0.032415 0.24277100000.036902 0.27637600000.210368 0.120818 7.522952 0 0.010844 0.021104 0San Mateo 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 41.49574 2407.793 02407.793 583.41180000000.003 0.007951 0 0 0 0.012 0.0227160000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 44.4449 2054.281 2054.281 0 404.8873 0.119383 6.528501 0 0.001296 0.019376 0 0.003 0.016094 0.001409 0.021073 0 0.012 0.045982 997.1964 5429.729 0 0.776466 16.96742 0 0.203285 1.106886 0 0.011094 0.24243100000.79244 17.316500001.06 3.065754 37.478110000San Mateo 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 252.722 13715.02 13715.02 0 5056.462 0.254289 0.063619 0.364813 0.00105 0 0.000289 0.003 0.01568 0.001142 0 0.000314 0.012 0.044799 1704.936 368.0466 29.69841 0.0078420.204874 0.032288 0.014975 0.005762 0.031384 0.036425 0.747093 0.159999 0.025822 0.116247 1.973857 0.053152 1.090157 0.175179 0.025822 0.116247 1.973857 0.044948 0.777227 5.779588 3.340614 0.016855 0.003639 0.000294San Mateo 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1111.576 75305.13 75305.13 0 10889.45 0.812155 5.594758 1.4975 0.009252 0.003188 0 0.003 0.01738 0.009671 0.003332 0 0.012 0.049657 1227.827 1209.887 0 0.000915 0.014161 00.193445 0.190618 0 0.019696 0.30488800000.022422 0.34709200000.217867 0.092546 5.69186 0 0.011627 0.011457 0San Mateo 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2.143949 185.5536 0185.5536 42.896130000000.003 0.00784 0 0 0 0.012 0.0223990000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 9.18414 584.7868 584.7868 0 81.73885 0.165457 1.529579 0 0.001178 0.004086 0 0.003 0.016148 0.001282 0.004444 0 0.012 0.046137 991.5916 1195.033 0 0.803368 4.140164 0 0.202142 0.243615 0 0.011479 0.05915500000.819896 4.22534100001.06 3.290889 7.774410000San Mateo 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 71.37135 3679.781 3679.781 0 285.4854 0.767242 0.883319 0.626471 0.001129 0 0.000724 0.002 0.015721 0.001228 0 0.000787 0.008 0.044917 782.2289 2499.775 59.80097 0.017691 2.446506 0.085381 0.036296 0.082358 0.056445 0.086658 10.61248 0.494948 0.122618 0.362839 1.907752 0.126452 15.4857 0.541906 0.122618 0.362839 1.907752 0.045 2.216556 82.06454 12.20654 0.007733 0.024713 0.000591San Mateo 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 168.9397 3758.24 3758.240 2446.247 4.387797 22.39071 0.476886 0.020913 0.021713 0 0.003 0.0157210.021858 0.022694 0 0.012 0.044917 1138.881 2225.679 0 0.002986 0.00812 00.179431 0.350657 0 0.064283 0.17481800000.073182 0.19901700000.144353 0.19584 4.548944 0 0.010785 0.021076 0San Mateo 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1.984894 78.89105 078.89105 17.79860000000.002318 0.00786 0 0 0 0.00927 0.0224590000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 6.552799 163.6295 163.6295 0 94.88454 0.515656 5.239615 0 0.003378 0.012103 0 0.003 0.015721 0.003674 0.013164 0 0.012 0.044917 1237.46 4096.22 0 3.296356 14.87044 0 0.252264 0.835041 0 0.047098 0.21246900003.364173 15.1763800001.06 10.9887 22.42920000San Mateo 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 61.62557 4190.344 4190.344 0 246.5023 0.03738 0 0.492117 0.001105 0 0.000151 0.002073 0.032333 0.001202 0 0.000164 0.00829 0.092379 995.3027 0 40.11712 0.002043 0 0.046071 0.00491 0 0.06861 0.005911 0 0.17302 0.05773 0.119898 0.618422 0.008625 0 0.189435 0.05773 0.119898 0.618422 0.045 0.562303 0 6.218459 0.00984 00.000397San Mateo 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 278.2185 21526.83 21526.83 0 1112.874 0.375553 0 0 0.006827 0 0 0.008097 0.0385 0.007136 0 0 0.0323870.11 1223.606 0 0 0.003145 0 0 0.19278 0 0 0.067717000000.077091000000.22 0.077193 0 0 0.011594 0 0San Mateo 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 37.31748 3870.538 03870.538 149.26990000000.007369 0.01925 0 0 0 0.029474 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 65.5154 4534.391 4534.391 0 262.0616 0.055433 0 0 0.000272 0 0 0.007742 0.0385 0.000285 0 0 0.030968 0.11 1262.747 0 0 4.100892 0 0 0.257419 0 0 0.058594000004.185261000000.97 46.5126300000
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2026Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.Region Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_DIUR NH3_RUNECO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSan Mateo 2026 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.283898 504.3899 504.3899 0 85.71223 3.767128 0 0.001928 0.001363 0 0.000634 0.005 0.031039 0.001482 0 0.00069 0.02 0.088682 2206.809 0 51.03869 0.109196 0 9.88E‐05 0.147264 0 0.0001 0.53602 0 0.000536 0.029322 0.212948 1.905434 0.782159 0 0.000587 0.029322 0.212948 1.905434 0.045 33.33714 0 4.679779 0.021817 0 0.000505San Mateo 2026 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1339.121 119591.7 119591.7 0 14836.49 2.513316 44.39177 3.042683 0.024334 0.030988 0 0.008607 0.030272 0.025434 0.032389 0 0.034426 0.086492 1752.991 8044.886 0 0.00116 0.158921 0 0.276185 1.267475 0 0.024964 3.42153600000.02842 3.89515800000.202556 0.108407 48.25142 0 0.0166 0.07618 0San Mateo 2026 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 17.24092 1568.579 01568.579 167.60970000000.008499 0.017277 0 0 0 0.033994 0.0493640000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 190.6077 12388.44 12388.44 0 1253.654 1.199642 8.304539 0 0.001614 0.012208 0 0.009 0.06089 0.001755 0.013277 0 0.036 0.17397 1452.495 8216.396 0 2.557538 21.22587 0 0.296101 1.674966 0 0.054701 0.33499600002.630844 21.6986900000.713158 15.13386 61.65390000San Mateo 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 238617.8 6969047 6969047 0 1119592 0.031815 0 0.225592 0.00108 0 0.001846 0.002 0.002349 0.0011740 0.002007 0.008 0.00671 259.6018 0 65.74318 0.001674 0 0.060063 0.0038060 0.029206 0.006262 0 0.277135 0.077036 0.201162 1.205717 0.009138 0 0.303428 0.077036 0.201162 1.205717 0.037625 0.572674 0 2.857953 0.002566 0 0.00065San Mateo 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 645.0664 13511.27 13511.27 0 2704.797 0.144803 0 0 0.010068 0 0 0.002 0.002414 0.010523 0 0 0.008 0.006897 227.0711 0 0 0.000882 0 0 0.035775 0 0 0.01898000000.021607000000.0031 0.280265 0 0 0.002152 0 0San Mateo 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 20627.64 751657.4 0 751657.4 1016060000000.002 0.001531 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043750000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb8434.471 284060.2 132539.9 151520.3 34876.54 0.002998 0 0.117199 0.00051 0 0.001839 0.002 0.001334 0.000555 0 0.002 0.008 0.003813 125.9186 0 62.33942 0.00038 0 0.041451 0.000497 0 0.019409 0.00126 0 0.176635 0.037598 0.034095 0.388535 0.001838 0 0.193393 0.037598 0.034095 0.388535 0.0188590.188068 0 1.37819 0.001245 0 0.000616San Mateo 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 25945.79 717326.6 717326.6 0 118989.9 0.078016 0 0.293254 0.001334 0 0.002155 0.002 0.002818 0.001451 0 0.002344 0.008 0.008052 304.0076 0 78.61644 0.003639 0 0.077166 0.006309 0 0.032586 0.015756 0 0.382671 0.113653 0.314838 1.794906 0.022991 0 0.418976 0.113653 0.314838 1.794906 0.038437 0.911226 0 3.898361 0.003005 0 0.000777San Mateo 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 5.731399 66.09906 66.09906 0 15.81841 1.607443 0 0 0.22953 0 0 0.002 0.003303 0.239908 0 0 0.008 0.009438 415.2037 0 0 0.01414 0 0 0.065416 0 0 0.304424000000.346566000000.0031 1.619672 0 0 0.003934 0 0San Mateo 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 141.9822 5160.147 05160.147 697.07160000000.002 0.001531 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043740000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb104.7443 3837.146 1635.987 2201.159 433.1175 0.002739 0 0.117199 0.00033 0 0.001308 0.002 0.001349 0.000359 0 0.001423 0.008 0.003854 115.0787 0 66.76301 0.000347 0 0.041425 0.000453 0 0.019385 0.001151 0 0.176635 0.02329 0.019927 0.265458 0.00168 0 0.193393 0.02329 0.019927 0.265458 0.017907 0.171942 0 1.37819 0.001138 0 0.00066San Mateo 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 169697.7 5206694 5206694 0 813724.2 0.039564 0 0.246415 0.001061 0 0.001756 0.002 0.002732 0.001154 0 0.001909 0.008 0.007806 310.9212 0 78.61365 0.001836 0 0.062615 0.004145 0 0.031058 0.006772 0 0.280198 0.053684 0.140038 0.877766 0.009881 00.306782 0.053684 0.140038 0.877766 0.039596 0.591205 0 2.920622 0.003074 0 0.000777San Mateo 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 655.1696 19853.42 19853.42 0 3139.478 0.033548 0 0 0.004079 0 0 0.002 0.002751 0.004264 0 0 0.008 0.00786 289.3493 0 0 0.000555 0 0 0.045587 0 0 0.011952000000.013607000000.0031 0.11634 0 0 0.002742 0 0San Mateo 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2139.962 58794.02 058794.02 10836.180000000.002 0.001528 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043640000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb2330.737 81093.05 36145.09 44947.96 9637.596 0.002864 0 0.117199 0.000395 0 0.001497 0.002 0.001342 0.00043 0 0.001628 0.008 0.003835 120.2973 0 72.79128 0.000362 0 0.041388 0.000473 0 0.01935 0.001204 0 0.176635 0.024917 0.022518 0.286085 0.001756 0 0.193393 0.024917 0.022518 0.286085 0.018711 0.179707 0 1.37819 0.001189 0 0.00072San Mateo 2026 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 12091.27 409379.7 409379.7 0 180141.9 0.082078 0.031581 0.525207 0.001324 0 0.000197 0.002 0.0273 0.00144 0 0.000214 0.008 0.078 811.9901 114.3649 26.27179 0.004327 0.101211 0.026073 0.004771 0.00278 0.045144 0.020676 0.362188 0.125413 0.029477 0.164217 1.658906 0.03017 0.528503 0.137311 0.029477 0.164217 1.658906 0.044975 0.843514 3.767862 3.376982 0.008027 0.001131 0.00026San Mateo 2026 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 5774.561 207453.3 207453.3 0 72636.71 0.759826 1.425846 0 0.020834 0.026593 0 0.003 0.0273 0.021776 0.027795 0 0.012 0.078 618.0427 123.4649 0 0.005378 0.005098 0 0.0973730.019452 0 0.11579 0.1097600000.131819 0.12495400000.199971 0.278839 0.909745 0 0.005856 0.00117 0San Mateo 2026 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 302.9677 15691.660 15691.66 4239.8810000000.002 0.01365 0 0 0 0.008 0.0390000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1390.219 45322.23 45322.23 0 20712.2 0.089949 0.030134 0.521013 0.001251 0 0.000168 0.002 0.03185 0.001361 0 0.000183 0.008 0.091 916.2773 132.4121 24.82523 0.00347 0.095994 0.025248 0.005641 0.002576 0.043086 0.015364 0.345713 0.121706 0.030304 0.166922 1.734893 0.02242 0.504463 0.133253 0.030304 0.166922 1.734893 0.044997 0.721895 3.771186 3.317909 0.009058 0.001309 0.000245San Mateo 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2589.799 92139.39 92139.39 0 32576.42 0.594292 1.367929 0 0.019861 0.026777 0 0.003 0.03185 0.020759 0.027987 0 0.012 0.091 726.711 197.0583 0 0.00529 0.005098 0 0.114494 0.031047 0 0.113884 0.1097600000.129649 0.12495400000.206359 0.253765 0.909745 0 0.006886 0.001867 0San Mateo 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 77.23784 3810.55 03810.55 1024.590000000.002 0.015925 0 0 0 0.008 0.04550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 14692.86 80438.96 80438.96 0 29385.71 0.495123 0 0.110033 0.001908 0 0.003479 0.001 0.0042 0.002043 0 0.003711 0.004 0.012 186.0574 0 43.36877 0.137447 0 0.160662 0.0360060 0.006719 0.86185 0 1.169727 3.545629 3.697544 3.067415 1.052189 0 1.272239 3.545629 3.697544 3.067415 0.008984 10.37381 0 7.649946 0.001839 0 0.000429San Mateo 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 95415.04 2995462 2995462 0 456021.9 0.045043 0 0.280293 0.001049 0 0.001787 0.002 0.002752 0.001141 0 0.001943 0.008 0.007862 375.0476 0 95.27447 0.002014 0 0.069417 0.004439 0 0.032516 0.007733 0 0.326682 0.058677 0.159655 0.988966 0.011284 0 0.357675 0.058677 0.159655 0.988966 0.039732 0.608979 0 3.043816 0.003708 0 0.000942San Mateo 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1264.364 38163.09 38163.09 0 5993.722 0.029639 0 0 0.00336 0 0 0.002 0.002815 0.003512 0 0 0.008 0.008044 381.8352 0 0 0.000371 0 0 0.060158 0 0 0.007978000000.009083000000.0031 0.162819 0 0 0.003618 0 0San Mateo 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2288.176 62843.93 0 62843.93 11585.670000000.002 0.001528 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043650000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb1352.288 48514.48 21600.3 26914.18 5591.711 0.00286 0 0.117199 0.0004240 0.001613 0.002 0.001343 0.000461 0 0.001754 0.008 0.003836 120.1646 0 88.85404 0.000363 0 0.041542 0.000476 0 0.019493 0.001202 0 0.176635 0.027524 0.02439 0.302424 0.001754 0 0.193393 0.027524 0.02439 0.302424 0.01870.179507 0 1.37819 0.001188 0 0.000878San Mateo 2026 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 860.1629 8288.685 8288.685 0 86.0507 0.23256 0 0.397384 0.001512 0 0.000384 0.003 0.015756 0.001645 0 0.000418 0.012 0.045017 1945.826 0 31.10578 0.008668 0 0.035239 0.017644 0 0.044254 0.033949 0 0.14164 7.387206 0.177323 2.704624 0.049538 0 0.155079 7.387206 0.177323 2.704624 0.044967 0.720477 0 3.190918 0.019236 00.000308San Mateo 2026 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 411.7686 4016.353 4016.3530 41.17686 2.902322 0 0 0.040701 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.042542 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1086.443 0 0 0.004006 0 0 0.17117 0 0 0.086257000000.098197000000.198004 0.264984 0 0 0.010295 0 0San Mateo 2026 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 848.5573 48169.43 48169.43 0 16977.94 0.269412 0.081996 0.401399 0.001349 0 0.000495 0.003 0.015756 0.001467 0 0.000539 0.012 0.045017 1697.118 512.7637 43.45365 0.008779 0.269455 0.043465 0.015276 0.007246 0.033229 0.041527 1.019578 0.229834 0.024222 0.200008 1.911848 0.060596 1.487766 0.251639 0.024222 0.200008 1.911848 0.044997 0.830138 15.19618 5.005077 0.016778 0.005069 0.00043San Mateo 2026 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4345.03 177809.3 177809.3 0 52490.37 1.079543 12.1982 1.615228 0.011982 0.022721 0 0.003 0.0159820.012524 0.023749 0 0.012 0.045664 1138.556 2209.16 0 0.001294 0.010675 00.17938 0.348054 0 0.027853 0.22983200000.031709 0.26164600000.211826 0.108771 7.505293 0 0.010781 0.020919 0San Mateo 2026 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 76.01194 4276.512 04276.512 1058.5440000000.003 0.007951 0 0 0 0.012 0.0227170000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 48.05658 2179.843 2179.843 0 442.254 0.112977 6.480284 0 0.001327 0.019663 0 0.003 0.016091 0.001443 0.021385 0 0.012 0.045974 991.4871 5407.178 0 0.778786 16.68583 0 0.202121 1.102289 0 0.011127 0.23840800000.794808 17.0291100001.06 3.063718 38.155580000San Mateo 2026 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 250.2122 13078.36 13078.36 0 5006.245 0.228578 0.061817 0.359747 0.001067 0 0.000285 0.003 0.01568 0.00116 0 0.00031 0.012 0.044799 1687.446 365.3109 29.42229 0.0069270.20465 0.03203 0.013867 0.005591 0.030955 0.031574 0.747709 0.159032 0.025716 0.122353 2.090543 0.046073 1.091056 0.17412 0.025716 0.122353 2.090543 0.044974 0.662703 5.783272 3.284676 0.016682 0.003611 0.000291San Mateo 2026 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1145.492 75611.47 75611.47 0 11233.17 0.7922 5.412165 1.482498 0.00906 0.003089 0 0.003 0.017403 0.00947 0.003228 0 0.012 0.049724 1214.431 1202.439 0 0.000896 0.014277 0 0.191334 0.189445 0 0.019283 0.30737100000.021953 0.34991900000.21794 0.09136 5.733335 0 0.0115 0.011386 0San Mateo 2026 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 3.59381 297.3898 0 297.3898 71.904950000000.003 0.00784 0 0 0 0.012 0.0223990000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 10.41211 669.454 669.454 0 92.66776 0.14486 1.520375 0 0.001277 0.004306 0 0.003 0.016148 0.001389 0.004683 0 0.012 0.046137 977.2919 1192.33 0 0.814665 4.026517 0 0.199227 0.243064 0 0.01164 0.05753100000.831426 4.10935600001.06 3.321327 8.2694360000San Mateo 2026 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 75.66977 3792.283 3792.283 0 302.6791 0.689408 0.850076 0.614008 0.001104 0 0.000723 0.002 0.015721 0.001201 0 0.000787 0.008 0.044917 775.7798 2481.854 58.67483 0.015917 2.447247 0.082067 0.033238 0.080267 0.056021 0.077973 10.62297 0.474628 0.118813 0.369995 1.975658 0.113778 15.50102 0.519658 0.118813 0.369995 1.975658 0.045 1.98957 82.12826 11.72979 0.007669 0.024536 0.00058San Mateo 2026 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 168.4764 3737.054 3737.054 0 2439.538 4.092097 21.5298 0.494851 0.019631 0.01977 0 0.003 0.0157210.020519 0.020664 0 0.012 0.044917 1133.73 2214.261 0 0.002862 0.008051 00.17862 0.348858 0 0.06162 0.17333100000.07015 0.19732500000.149335 0.189386 4.685291 0 0.010736 0.020968 0San Mateo 2026 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 3.281397 127.7057 0127.7057 29.509640000000.002326 0.00786 0 0 0 0.009303 0.0224590000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 6.807777 168.2676 168.2676 0 98.5766 0.49789 5.22911 0 0.003378 0.012354 0 0.003 0.015721 0.003674 0.013436 0 0.012 0.044917 1228.474 4102.954 0 3.247338 14.74074 0 0.250432 0.836414 0 0.046398 0.21061600003.314147 15.04400001.06 10.75802 22.994170000San Mateo 2026 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 61.80696 4202.678 4202.678 0 247.2278 0.033837 0 0.38239 0.001186 0 0.000163 0.002073 0.032333 0.00129 0 0.000177 0.00829 0.092379 954.5156 0 39.0065 0.001796 0 0.0361130.004527 0 0.057552 0.005058 0 0.130834 0.029473 0.090867 0.345962 0.007381 0 0.143246 0.029473 0.090867 0.345962 0.045 0.558823 0 6.549286 0.009436 0 0.000386San Mateo 2026 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 278.8478 21575.87 21575.87 0 1115.391 0.37554 0 0 0.006827 0 0 0.008097 0.0385 0.007135 0 0 0.032386 0.11 1223.487 0 0 0.003145 0 0 0.192761 0 0 0.067715000000.077089000000.22 0.07719 0 0 0.011593 0 0San Mateo 2026 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 37.55556 3889.774 03889.774 150.22220000000.007371 0.01925 0 0 0 0.029483 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 65.76966 4554.21 4554.21 0 263.0787 0.055441 0 0 0.000272 0 0 0.007743 0.0385 0.000285 0 0 0.030972 0.11 1262.837 0 0 4.101249 0 0 0.257438 0 0 0.058599000004.185626000000.97 46.5188700000
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2027Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.Region Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_DIUR NH3_RUNECO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSan Mateo 2027 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.22201 465.9735 465.9735 0 84.47398 3.784401 0 0.001809 0.00137 0 0.000612 0.005 0.031101 0.00149 0 0.000666 0.02 0.088859 2187.915 0 50.77401 0.10848 0 9.38E‐05 0.147815 0 9.4E‐05 0.529357 0 0.000508 0.02999 0.222639 2.054582 0.772437 0 0.000556 0.02999 0.222639 2.054582 0.045 33.09537 0 4.725369 0.02163 0 0.000502San Mateo 2027 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1346.151 119374.9 119374.9 0 15003.58 2.407204 43.42964 3.064838 0.024107 0.029271 0 0.008607 0.030209 0.025197 0.030595 0 0.034429 0.086312 1721.1 7957.443 0 0.001113 0.159723 0 0.27116 1.253698 0 0.023958 3.43879300000.027275 3.91480400000.203961 0.103951 48.72467 0 0.016298 0.075352 0San Mateo 2027 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 27.72379 2533.074 02533.074 269.75160000000.008486 0.017473 0 0 0 0.033946 0.0499220000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 199.6437 12874.54 12874.54 0 1300.878 1.084345 7.803952 0 0.001553 0.012198 0 0.009 0.061541 0.001689 0.013266 0 0.036 0.175831 1433.526 8133.569 0 2.341828 20.00939 00.292234 1.658081 0 0.049129 0.31305100002.407859 20.4519900000.706678 14.49829 60.402740000San Mateo 2027 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 238471.3 6787745 6787745 0 1118595 0.029557 0 0.217198 0.001019 0 0.001761 0.002 0.002348 0.001108 0 0.001916 0.008 0.00671 254.8128 0 64.39911 0.001542 0 0.056785 0.003650 0.02841 0.00568 0 0.260517 0.07439 0.198496 1.18951 0.008288 0 0.2852340.07439 0.198496 1.18951 0.038281 0.547784 0 2.718673 0.002519 0 0.000637San Mateo 2027 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 577.6306 11859.15 11859.15 0 2430.953 0.125063 0 0 0.008723 0 0 0.002 0.002417 0.009117 0 0 0.008 0.006905 224.26 0 0 0.000794 0 0 0.035332 0 0 0.01709000000.019456000000.0031 0.267761 0 0 0.002125 0 0San Mateo 2027 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 21755.83 763478.8 0 763478.8 106722.50000000.002 0.001532 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043770000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb8813.935 285623.3 131294.8 154328.5 36445.62 0.002953 0 0.117199 0.000473 0 0.001738 0.002 0.001338 0.000514 0 0.00189 0.008 0.003824 124.0518 0 61.66268 0.000372 0 0.041171 0.000483 0 0.019149 0.001241 0 0.176635 0.03859 0.038322 0.416371 0.001811 0 0.193393 0.03859 0.038322 0.416371 0.018683 0.185275 0 1.37819 0.001226 0 0.00061San Mateo 2027 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 26419.18 713999.1 713999.1 0 121334.5 0.069103 0 0.27581 0.001241 0 0.002022 0.002 0.002818 0.001349 0 0.002199 0.008 0.008051 298.1151 0 76.68438 0.003215 0 0.071337 0.005799 0 0.031456 0.01376 0 0.349477 0.105239 0.292408 1.687165 0.020078 00.382633 0.105239 0.292408 1.687165 0.03886 0.838518 0 3.597733 0.002947 0 0.000758San Mateo 2027 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1.374283 18.5258 18.52580 4.138205 0.988299 0 0 0.1471 0 0 0.002 0.003155 0.153751 0 0 0.008 0.009016377.4379 0 0 0.011093 0 0 0.059465 0 0 0.238825000000.271887000000.0031 1.735378 0 0 0.003576 0 0San Mateo 2027 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 175.6332 6297.196 06297.196 865.69090000000.002 0.00153 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043730000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb134.7957 4749.74 2001.346 2748.394 557.3801 0.002707 0 0.117199 0.000303 0 0.001221 0.002 0.001352 0.00033 0 0.001328 0.008 0.003862 113.7277 0 66.0325 0.000341 0 0.041159 0.000442 0 0.019137 0.001138 0 0.176635 0.023077 0.019848 0.265427 0.00166 0 0.193393 0.023077 0.019848 0.265427 0.017697 0.169916 0 1.37819 0.001124 0 0.000653San Mateo 2027 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 179414.4 5337772 5337772 0 859058.8 0.036713 0 0.236885 0.001002 0 0.001674 0.002 0.002741 0.00109 0 0.00182 0.008 0.00783 304.7363 0 76.89745 0.001725 0 0.059485 0.003982 0 0.030367 0.006284 0 0.264449 0.051332 0.135343 0.845955 0.00917 0 0.289538 0.051332 0.135343 0.845955 0.040019 0.572376 0 2.798095 0.003013 0 0.00076San Mateo 2027 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 689.4223 20263.35 20263.35 0 3297.619 0.031701 0 0 0.003958 0 0 0.002 0.002756 0.004137 0 0 0.008 0.007875 283.5314 0 0 0.000547 0 0 0.04467 0 0 0.011786000000.013417000000.0031 0.115725 0 0 0.002687 0 0San Mateo 2027 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2621.122 69186.62 069186.62 13210.510000000.002 0.001529 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043670000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb2686.495 89530.08 39333.03 50197.05 11108.66 0.002822 0 0.117199 0.000367 0 0.001415 0.002 0.001346 0.000399 0 0.001539 0.008 0.003845 118.5678 071.91759 0.000355 0 0.041086 0.000459 0 0.01907 0.001186 0 0.176635 0.025013 0.022284 0.283634 0.001731 0 0.193393 0.025013 0.022284 0.283634 0.018444 0.177113 0 1.37819 0.001172 0 0.000711San Mateo 2027 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 12519.56 410499.8 410499.8 0 186522.8 0.072401 0.030667 0.505801 0.001305 0 0.000184 0.002 0.0273 0.001419 0 0.0002 0.008 0.078 802.6261 113.4583 26.05478 0.003836 0.098555 0.025023 0.004246 0.002719 0.043775 0.018096 0.351746 0.119942 0.027725 0.156123 1.578557 0.026406 0.513267 0.131322 0.027725 0.156123 1.578557 0.044987 0.808003 3.769346 3.38625 0.007935 0.001122 0.000258San Mateo 2027 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6121.922 212564.8 212564.8 0 77006.08 0.667178 1.348518 0 0.019684 0.026527 0 0.003 0.0273 0.020574 0.027726 0 0.012 0.078 615.5765 122.1868 0 0.005114 0.005098 0 0.0969840.019251 0 0.110092 0.1097600000.125333 0.12495400000.203121 0.261855 0.909745 0 0.005833 0.001158 0San Mateo 2027 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 519.4144 25488.910 25488.91 7271.1820000000.002 0.01365 0 0 0 0.008 0.0390000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1431.729 45337.82 45337.82 0 21330.63 0.077643 0.029036 0.498496 0.001227 0 0.000155 0.002 0.03185 0.001334 0 0.000168 0.008 0.091 905.6598 131.3222 24.61878 0.0029780.092887 0.023985 0.004985 0.002508 0.041598 0.012914 0.333181 0.114904 0.028288 0.158472 1.660759 0.018844 0.486177 0.125806 0.028288 0.158472 1.660759 0.045 0.687204 3.773249 3.317151 0.008953 0.001298 0.000243San Mateo 2027 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2777.037 94986.53 94986.53 0 34931.64 0.539543 1.299818 0 0.019303 0.02677 0 0.003 0.03185 0.020176 0.02798 0 0.012 0.091 722.452 195.305 0 0.005137 0.005098 0 0.113823 0.03077 0 0.110593 0.1097600000.125902 0.12495400000.208358 0.246416 0.909745 0 0.006846 0.001851 0San Mateo 2027 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 131.984 6178.283 06178.283 1750.7240000000.002 0.015925 0 0 0 0.008 0.04550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 15361.78 81910.47 81910.47 0 30723.56 0.487065 0 0.103341 0.001915 0 0.003454 0.001 0.0042 0.002051 0 0.003688 0.004 0.012 185.7732 0 42.22847 0.134785 0 0.155421 0.0356890 0.006376 0.837827 0 1.124359 3.543525 3.694561 2.980616 1.026866 0 1.223091 3.543525 3.694561 2.980616 0.009015 10.14745 0 7.620964 0.001837 0 0.000417San Mateo 2027 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 100853.9 3072334 3072334 0 481493.9 0.040639 0 0.264467 0.000989 0 0.001695 0.002 0.002761 0.001075 0 0.001844 0.008 0.007889 367.608 0 93.19698 0.001858 0 0.065023 0.004199 0 0.031612 0.007009 0 0.302374 0.055687 0.152422 0.944599 0.010227 0 0.331061 0.055687 0.152422 0.944599 0.040108 0.585727 0 2.900745 0.0036340 0.000921San Mateo 2027 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1306.722 38182.61 38182.61 0 6183.555 0.025409 0 0 0.002915 0 0 0.002 0.002822 0.003047 0 0 0.008 0.008064 374.4434 0 0 0.000339 0 0 0.058994 0 0 0.007306000000.008318000000.0031 0.158269 0 0 0.003548 0 0San Mateo 2027 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2770.892 73029.24 0 73029.24 13959.050000000.002 0.001529 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043680000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb1580.566 54464.83 23853.74 30611.09 6535.639 0.002814 0 0.117199 0.000387 0 0.001503 0.002 0.001347 0.000421 0 0.001634 0.008 0.003848 118.2012 087.58088 0.000355 0 0.041243 0.000462 0 0.019216 0.001183 0 0.176635 0.027198 0.0246 0.30315 0.001726 0 0.193393 0.027198 0.0246 0.30315 0.0183950.176568 0 1.37819 0.001169 0 0.000866San Mateo 2027 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 889.7275 8482.343 8482.343 0 89.00834 0.205598 0 0.394341 0.001477 0 0.000374 0.003 0.015756 0.001606 0 0.000407 0.012 0.045017 1945.602 0 30.91944 0.007677 0 0.034481 0.016471 0 0.044506 0.029111 0 0.136554 6.497034 0.156813 2.414317 0.042478 00.149509 6.497034 0.156813 2.414317 0.044981 0.592155 0 3.084243 0.019234 0 0.000306San Mateo 2027 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 438.9117 4153.858 4153.8580 43.89117 2.832054 0 0 0.037464 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.039158 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1086.701 0 0 0.003935 0 0 0.17121 0 0 0.084726000000.096455000000.20065 0.258294 0 0 0.010297 0 0San Mateo 2027 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 867.5241 48390.56 48390.56 0 17357.42 0.227578 0.078989 0.386341 0.001347 0 0.000485 0.003 0.015756 0.001465 0 0.000528 0.012 0.045017 1680.333 507.7545 42.67241 0.007475 0.271014 0.042102 0.013626 0.007061 0.032711 0.034686 1.021219 0.219918 0.022149 0.184846 1.785685 0.050614 1.490161 0.240782 0.022149 0.184846 1.785685 0.045 0.678531 15.21525 4.76187 0.016612 0.00502 0.000422San Mateo 2027 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4381.456 177451.1 177451.1 0 52965.25 0.98012 11.57543 1.609464 0.01032 0.018608 0 0.003 0.0159830.010787 0.019449 0 0.012 0.045664 1131.943 2189.732 0 0.001114 0.0101780 0.178338 0.344993 0 0.023977 0.21912700000.027296 0.2494600000.213081 0.098415 7.494036 0 0.010719 0.020735 0San Mateo 2027 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 127.7802 7032.616 07032.616 1769.6480000000.003 0.007951 0 0 0 0.012 0.0227180000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 51.5504 2296.644 2296.644 0 479.4474 0.107496 6.432876 0 0.001352 0.019879 0 0.003 0.016088 0.001471 0.021621 0 0.012 0.045965 986.2486 5381.374 0 0.780237 16.43266 0 0.201053 1.097028 0 0.011148 0.2347900000.796289 16.7707300001.06 3.061376 38.676940000San Mateo 2027 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 248.2101 12473.77 12473.77 0 4966.188 0.211311 0.060192 0.357193 0.00109 0 0.00029 0.003 0.01568 0.001186 0 0.000315 0.012 0.044799 1671.441 362.8494 29.18588 0.0064560.203928 0.031666 0.013066 0.005413 0.030606 0.029254 0.747798 0.157480.025953 0.127029 2.17 0.042687 1.091184 0.172421 0.025953 0.127029 2.17 0.044975 0.611503 5.783803 3.243094 0.016524 0.003587 0.000289San Mateo 2027 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1179.467 75909.96 75909.96 0 11575.44 0.775196 5.241419 1.466802 0.008873 0.002989 0 0.003 0.017435 0.009274 0.003124 0 0.012 0.049814 1200.115 1193.83 0 0.000878 0.014362 0 0.189079 0.188088 0 0.018903 0.30921600000.021519 0.35201900000.218013 0.090292 5.765682 0 0.011364 0.011305 0San Mateo 2027 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 5.720233 456.3866 0456.3866 114.45040000000.003 0.00784 0 0 0 0.012 0.0223990000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 11.58861 747.5342 747.5342 0 103.1386 0.129807 1.513364 0 0.001349 0.004473 0 0.003 0.016148 0.001467 0.004865 0 0.012 0.046137 963.6185 1186.95 0 0.822922 3.939956 0 0.19644 0.241968 0 0.011758 0.05629400000.839853 4.02101400001.06 3.343572 8.6464820000San Mateo 2027 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 79.49692 3883.503 3883.503 0 317.9877 0.632481 0.822307 0.600742 0.001079 0 0.000721 0.002 0.015721 0.001174 0 0.000784 0.008 0.044917 769.995 2465.835 57.55214 0.014081 2.448145 0.080367 0.03084 0.078539 0.055535 0.068887 10.63321 0.464416 0.112849 0.357376 1.946706 0.100519 15.51596 0.508477 0.112849 0.357376 1.946706 0.045 1.780147 82.19044 11.21377 0.007612 0.024377 0.000569San Mateo 2027 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 167.5641 3706.878 3706.878 0 2426.328 3.793477 20.61416 0.5128 0.018391 0.017915 0 0.003 0.0157210.019223 0.018725 0 0.012 0.044917 1128.583 2201.776 0 0.002731 0.0080030 0.177809 0.346891 0 0.058797 0.17229900000.066936 0.19614900000.15435 0.182463 4.828329 0 0.010687 0.02085 0San Mateo 2027 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 5.310741 202.8314 0202.8314 47.876910000000.002333 0.00786 0 0 0 0.009332 0.0224590000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 7.053679 172.5017 172.5017 0 102.1373 0.481743 5.219695 0 0.003378 0.012579 0 0.003 0.015721 0.003674 0.01368 0 0.012 0.044917 1220.305 4108.986 0 3.202788 14.62449 0 0.248767 0.837644 0 0.045762 0.20895500003.26868 14.9253700001.06 10.54837 23.500510000San Mateo 2027 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 61.98533 4214.564 4214.564 0 247.9413 0.036041 0 0.380804 0.001186 0 0.000163 0.002072 0.0323320.00129 0 0.000177 0.00829 0.092377 954.3343 0 38.82137 0.001768 0 0.036766 0.004675 0 0.057249 0.004986 0 0.133306 0.032636 0.102703 0.407958 0.007275 0 0.145953 0.032636 0.102703 0.407958 0.045 0.565023 0 6.43097 0.009435 0 0.000384San Mateo 2027 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 279.2472 21607.25 21607.25 0 1116.989 0.375529 0 0 0.006826 0 0 0.008096 0.0385 0.007135 0 0 0.0323850.11 1223.405 0 0 0.003145 0 0 0.192748 0 0 0.067714000000.077087000000.22 0.077188 0 0 0.011592 0 0San Mateo 2027 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 38.11938 3934.273 03934.273 152.47750000000.007377 0.01925 0 0 0 0.029507 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 65.93105 4566.887 4566.887 0 263.7242 0.055445 0 0 0.000272 0 0 0.007744 0.0385 0.000285 0 0 0.030974 0.11 1262.884 0 0 4.101438 0 0 0.257447 0 0 0.058601000004.185818000000.97 46.5221600000
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2028Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.Region Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_DIUR NH3_RUNECO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSan Mateo 2028 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.087369 426.9851 426.9851 0 81.78009 3.785923 0 0.000743 0.001359 0 0.000569 0.005 0.031153 0.001478 0 0.000618 0.02 0.089009 2169.605 0 49.72279 0.109696 0 8.65E‐05 0.148497 0 4.84E‐05 0.532974 0 0.000469 0.02665 0.192885 1.828464 0.777714 00.000513 0.02665 0.192885 1.828464 0.045 33.60705 0 4.299787 0.021449 0 0.000492San Mateo 2028 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1348.7 118863.6 118863.60 15118.87 2.305759 42.54712 3.062001 0.02389 0.027666 0 0.008609 0.030151 0.02497 0.028917 0 0.034435 0.086144 1688.482 7871.283 0 0.001068 0.160574 0 0.266021 1.240124 0 0.022983 3.45711300000.026165 3.9356600000.20529 0.099669 49.19936 0 0.015989 0.074536 0San Mateo 2028 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 42.61913 3900.691 03900.691 410.63630000000.008472 0.017636 0 0 0 0.033886 0.050390000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 207.2611 13277.54 13277.54 0 1340.296 0.986115 7.372316 0 0.001507 0.012221 0 0.009 0.062091 0.001639 0.013292 0 0.036 0.177403 1416.611 8063.993 0 2.149289 18.9597 0 0.288785 1.643898 0 0.04445 0.29455400002.209162 19.3767100000.701215 13.92351 59.34830000San Mateo 2028 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 238224 6625096 6625096 01117181 0.027731 0 0.210074 0.000951 0 0.001665 0.002 0.002348 0.001034 00.00181 0.008 0.00671 250.5221 0 63.1731 0.001433 0 0.053849 0.003522 0 0.027728 0.005198 0 0.245617 0.071362 0.19449 1.165638 0.007584 0 0.2689190.071362 0.19449 1.165638 0.038871 0.52715 0 2.594942 0.002477 0 0.000625San Mateo 2028 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 518.2623 10422.73 10422.73 0 2185.907 0.108554 0 0 0.007604 0 0 0.002 0.002418 0.007948 0 0 0.008 0.00691 221.3861 0 0 0.000725 0 0 0.034879 0 0 0.015608000000.017769000000.0031 0.255789 0 0 0.002098 0 0San Mateo 2028 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 22943.23 778703.3 0 778703.3 112146.20000000.002 0.001532 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043790000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb9174.453 287067.5 130150.4 156917.1 37936.36 0.002913 0 0.117199 0.000434 0 0.00163 0.002 0.001342 0.000472 0 0.001773 0.008 0.003833 122.3509 0 61.04893 0.000364 0 0.040915 0.00047 0 0.018911 0.001224 0 0.176635 0.039127 0.042399 0.443788 0.001786 0 0.193393 0.039127 0.042399 0.443788 0.018519 0.182732 0 1.37819 0.00121 0 0.000604San Mateo 2028 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 26871.73 710860.9 710860.9 0 123556 0.061142 0 0.260378 0.001145 0 0.001889 0.002 0.002819 0.001246 0 0.002054 0.008 0.008053 292.8336 0 74.93146 0.002858 0 0.066199 0.005353 0 0.03047 0.012073 0 0.320302 0.098602 0.279171 1.625538 0.017617 0 0.350691 0.098602 0.279171 1.625538 0.039234 0.777188 0 3.333143 0.002895 0 0.000741San Mateo 2028 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1.279991 17.08643 17.08643 0 3.850863 0.926773 0 0 0.137922 0 0 0.002 0.003128 0.144159 0 0 0.008 0.008938 374.9032 0 0 0.010417 0 0 0.059066 0 0 0.224274000000.255321000000.0031 1.631356 0 0 0.003552 0 0San Mateo 2028 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 215.382 7602.43 0 7602.43 1064.3150000000.002 0.00153 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043720000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb168.7717 5738.6 2397.775 3340.825 697.8708 0.002684 0 0.117199 0.0002740 0.00112 0.002 0.001354 0.000298 0 0.001218 0.008 0.003869 112.7738 0 65.50656 0.000336 0 0.040926 0.000434 0 0.018921 0.001128 0 0.176635 0.0229 0.019715 0.264869 0.001646 0 0.193393 0.0229 0.019715 0.264869 0.017549 0.168483 0 1.37819 0.001115 0 0.000648San Mateo 2028 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 188791.4 5454076 5454076 0 902311 0.034414 0 0.229703 0.000938 0 0.001582 0.002 0.002749 0.001020 0.001721 0.008 0.007856 299.4341 0 75.41282 0.001635 0 0.056817 0.003851 0 0.029851 0.005886 0 0.25108 0.049035 0.130934 0.815973 0.008588 0 0.274901 0.049035 0.130934 0.815973 0.040367 0.558186 0 2.697318 0.00296 0 0.000746San Mateo 2028 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 721.4435 20620.51 20620.51 0 3444.651 0.030404 0 0 0.003874 0 0 0.002 0.002761 0.00405 0 0 0.008 0.00789 278.3943 0 0 0.000543 0 0 0.043861 0 0 0.011695000000.013314000000.0031 0.115462 0 0 0.002638 0 0San Mateo 2028 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 3148.148 80104.27 080104.27 15796.570000000.002 0.001529 0 0 0 0.008 0.004370000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb3055.991 97890.29 42500.25 55390.04 12636.52 0.002789 0 0.117199 0.000337 0 0.001324 0.002 0.001349 0.000367 0 0.001439 0.008 0.003854 117.1712 071.20282 0.000348 0 0.040816 0.000448 0 0.01882 0.001172 0 0.176635 0.025087 0.022531 0.285181 0.001711 0 0.193393 0.025087 0.022531 0.285181 0.018229 0.175018 0 1.37819 0.001158 0 0.000704San Mateo 2028 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 12894.54 409468.1 409468.1 0 192109.4 0.064108 0.029866 0.488744 0.00129 0 0.000174 0.002 0.0273 0.001403 0 0.000189 0.008 0.078 794.8073 112.6645 25.85055 0.003419 0.096188 0.024141 0.003805 0.002663 0.042539 0.0159 0.342597 0.115396 0.026106 0.148763 1.503764 0.023201 0.499917 0.126344 0.026106 0.148763 1.503764 0.045 0.777673 3.770584 3.391678 0.007857 0.001114 0.000256San Mateo 2028 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6434.479 215842.1 215842.1 0 80937.65 0.593324 1.283254 0 0.018835 0.026477 0 0.003 0.0273 0.019687 0.027674 0 0.012 0.078 613.5743 121.1087 0 0.004903 0.005098 0 0.0966690.019081 0 0.105551 0.1097600000.120162 0.12495400000.205669 0.24918 0.909745 0 0.005814 0.001148 0San Mateo 2028 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 815.9233 38136.820 38136.82 11425.030000000.002 0.01365 0 0 0 0.008 0.0390000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1466.531 45093.53 45093.53 0 21849.12 0.067968 0.028072 0.478763 0.001212 0 0.000145 0.002 0.03185 0.001318 0 0.000157 0.008 0.091 896.8671 130.3704 24.43935 0.0026340.090113 0.022894 0.004463 0.002446 0.040267 0.011246 0.322167 0.109059 0.026654 0.152607 1.608504 0.016409 0.470106 0.119406 0.026654 0.152607 1.608504 0.045 0.664739 3.774704 3.316521 0.008866 0.001289 0.000242San Mateo 2028 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2946.348 96950.8 96950.8 0 37061.35 0.496841 1.243506 0 0.018964 0.026767 0 0.003 0.03185 0.019821 0.027977 0 0.012 0.091 718.9999 193.8475 0 0.00502 0.005098 0 0.113279 0.030541 0 0.108083 0.1097600000.123045 0.12495400000.209959 0.2419 0.909745 0 0.006813 0.001837 0San Mateo 2028 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 206.8476 9233.1040 9233.104 2743.6450000000.002 0.015925 0 0 0 0.008 0.04550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 16024.84 83191.06 83191.06 0 32049.68 0.480774 0 0.097717 0.001923 0 0.003447 0.001 0.0042 0.00206 0 0.003683 0.004 0.012 185.5578 0 41.2827 0.132675 0 0.151107 0.035446 0 0.006084 0.818771 0 1.08739 3.541021 3.687565 2.884103 1.006867 0 1.183043 3.541021 3.687565 2.884103 0.00904 9.971326 0 7.601536 0.001834 0 0.000408San Mateo 2028 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 106046.8 3139229 3139229 0 505616.6 0.037084 0 0.252753 0.000922 0 0.001593 0.002 0.002771 0.001003 0 0.001732 0.008 0.007918 361.2163 0 91.37377 0.00172 0 0.061312 0.004005 0 0.03096 0.006353 0 0.281783 0.052632 0.145505 0.901798 0.00927 0 0.308517 0.052632 0.145505 0.901798 0.040421 0.566677 0 2.776662 0.003571 0 0.000903San Mateo 2028 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1344.624 38138.7 38138.7 06350.78 0.022126 0 0 0.002553 0 0 0.002 0.002828 0.002669 0 0 0.008 0.00808 367.7263 0 0 0.000316 0 0 0.057935 0 0 0.006813000000.007757000000.0031 0.154195 0 0 0.003484 0 0San Mateo 2028 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 3273.507 83057.65 0 83057.65 16411.370000000.002 0.00153 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043710000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb1812.403 60147.57 26000.4 34147.16 7494.288 0.002777 0 0.117199 0.000350 0.001388 0.002 0.00135 0.000381 0 0.00151 0.008 0.003858 116.664 0 86.55979 0.000348 0 0.040976 0.00045 0 0.018968 0.001167 0 0.176635 0.027415 0.02651 0.316449 0.001703 0 0.193393 0.027415 0.02651 0.316449 0.018156 0.174266 0 1.37819 0.001153 0 0.000856San Mateo 2028 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 918.1328 8640.917 8640.917 0 91.85001 0.182853 0 0.391887 0.001446 0 0.000365 0.003 0.015756 0.001573 0 0.000397 0.012 0.045017 1945.394 0 30.76138 0.006797 0 0.033875 0.015497 0 0.044709 0.024735 0 0.132426 5.693158 0.137911 2.141844 0.036093 00.14499 5.693158 0.137911 2.141844 0.045 0.473286 0 2.993366 0.019232 0 0.000304San Mateo 2028 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 465.6535 4277.963 4277.9630 46.56535 2.773275 0 0 0.034738 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.036308 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1086.92 0 0 0.003879 0 0 0.171245 0 0 0.083504000000.095063000000.202893 0.252824 0 0 0.010299 0 0San Mateo 2028 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 882.2879 48208.29 48208.29 0 17652.82 0.192737 0.075927 0.365526 0.001346 0 0.000477 0.003 0.015756 0.001464 0 0.000519 0.012 0.045017 1665.814 503.224 41.97811 0.00648 0.272074 0.040965 0.012105 0.006866 0.031489 0.029453 1.02262 0.211628 0.020138 0.169219 1.647752 0.042978 1.492204 0.231706 0.020138 0.169219 1.647752 0.045 0.560554 15.23151 4.548122 0.016468 0.004975 0.000415San Mateo 2028 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4396.245 176136.6 176136.6 0 53168.12 0.894905 11.00751 1.58431 0.008976 0.015354 0 0.003 0.015983 0.009382 0.016048 0 0.012 0.045665 1125.346 2171.217 0 0.000968 0.009787 0 0.177299 0.342076 0 0.020831 0.21072100000.023715 0.23988900000.214104 0.08991 7.487192 0 0.010656 0.02056 0San Mateo 2028 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 205.6395 11169.03 011169.03 2839.8270000000.003 0.007952 0 0 0 0.012 0.0227190000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 54.70168 2394.418 2394.418 0 514.2228 0.103085 6.387434 0 0.001372 0.020029 0 0.003 0.016084 0.001492 0.021784 0 0.012 0.045955 981.6838 5353.703 0 0.780893 16.21102 00.200123 1.091387 0 0.011157 0.23162400000.796958 16.5445400001.06 3.059145 39.048260000San Mateo 2028 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 244.3586 11852.4 11852.4 0 4889.127 0.189256 0.058492 0.348522 0.001102 0 0.000286 0.003 0.01568 0.001198 0 0.000311 0.012 0.044799 1656.69 360.4769 28.94764 0.005671 0.203559 0.031483 0.012019 0.005247 0.029789 0.024998 0.748329 0.1569440.025167 0.126217 2.177423 0.036477 1.091959 0.171834 0.025167 0.126217 2.177423 0.045 0.520195 5.786979 3.194706 0.016378 0.003564 0.000286San Mateo 2028 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1211.393 76199.48 76199.48 0 11894.78 0.759172 5.051633 1.425614 0.008693 0.002895 0 0.003 0.017466 0.009086 0.003026 0 0.012 0.049902 1185.134 1184.015 0 0.000861 0.014413 0 0.186718 0.186542 0 0.018529 0.31031600000.021094 0.35327100000.21809 0.089377 5.786939 0 0.011223 0.011212 0San Mateo 2028 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 8.935831 691.3658 0691.3658 178.78810000000.003 0.00784 0 0 0 0.012 0.0223990000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 12.72738 821.4822 821.4822 0 113.2737 0.117916 1.507582 0 0.001405 0.004611 0 0.003 0.016148 0.001529 0.005015 0 0.012 0.046137 950.7451 1180.472 0 0.829445 3.868569 00.193816 0.240647 0 0.011851 0.05527400000.846509 3.94815800001.06 3.361144 8.9574340000San Mateo 2028 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 82.76405 3950.797 3950.797 0 331.0562 0.573197 0.792827 0.582796 0.001058 0 0.000719 0.002 0.015721 0.001151 0 0.000782 0.008 0.044917 764.9791 2451.955 56.61559 0.012554 2.448346 0.078437 0.028355 0.076641 0.054315 0.061351 10.64152 0.452518 0.104317 0.332084 1.837104 0.089523 15.52808 0.495451 0.104317 0.332084 1.837104 0.045 1.593965 82.24088 10.79588 0.007563 0.02424 0.00056San Mateo 2028 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 166.0168 3662.699 3662.699 0 2403.923 3.486175 19.62238 0.524341 0.017155 0.016119 0 0.003 0.015721 0.01793 0.016848 0 0.012 0.044917 1123.427 2188.308 0 0.002589 0.007973 0 0.176996 0.344769 0 0.055749 0.1716500000.063466 0.19541100000.159444 0.174936 4.978986 0 0.010638 0.020722 0San Mateo 2028 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 8.410812 315.9164 0315.9164 76.163520000000.002342 0.00786 0 0 0 0.009369 0.0224590000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 7.283353 176.1298 176.1298 0 105.463 0.467367 5.211463 0 0.003378 0.012775 0 0.003 0.015721 0.003674 0.013894 0 0.012 0.044917 1213.033 4114.256 0 3.163125 14.52286 0 0.247285 0.838718 0 0.045195 0.20750300003.228201 14.8216400001.06 10.36172 23.943230000San Mateo 2028 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 62.16369 4226.45 4226.45 0 248.6548 0.033873 0 0.3307 0.001202 0 0.000164 0.002072 0.032331 0.001307 0 0.000179 0.00829 0.092375 932.6347 0 38.1862 0.001598 0 0.032638 0.004398 0 0.051649 0.004432 0 0.116715 0.023934 0.090544 0.316913 0.006466 0 0.127788 0.023934 0.090544 0.316913 0.045 0.558751 0 6.359155 0.009220 0.000378San Mateo 2028 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 260.7992 19902.79 19902.79 0 1043.197 0.374953 0 0 0.006816 0 0 0.008085 0.0385 0.007124 0 0 0.0323420.11 1245.48 0 0 0.003141 0 0 0.196226 0 0 0.067634000000.076996000000.22 0.077071 0 0 0.011802 0 0San Mateo 2028 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 53.31881 5326.696 05326.696 213.27520000000.007594 0.01925 0 0 0 0.030377 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 70.30426 4967.469 4967.469 0 281.217 0.055732 0 0 0.000273 0 0 0.007781 0.0385 0.000286 0 0 0.031125 0.11 1265.998 0 0 4.113837 0 0 0.258082 0 0 0.058779000004.198472000000.97 46.738700000
Year 2022Season EmissionType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHACH4_IDLEX00000.005843 0.003613 0.014892 0.260799534 0.008159 0 0 0.08628 0ACH4_RUNEX0.002319 0.006287 0.002602 0.003201 0.007384 0.006718 0.012528 0.279686949 0.008252 0.161010459 0.159449 0.085895 0.013708ACH4_STREX0.071825 0.108853 0.080541 0.095514 0.024032 0.014498 0.011865 6.77534E‐07 0.01134 0.007774918 0.191389 0.007998 0.027902ACO_IDLEX00000.205796 0.152528 0.654892 4.440944093 0.463936 0 0 2.073163 0ACO_RUNEX0.663688 1.363815 0.738237 0.80289 0.87107 0.575388 0.595575 1.692340791 0.306637 2.059527265 12.33015 1.812081 1.518033ACO_STREX3.345366 5.605019 3.681168 3.95481 2.432982 1.458578 1.477853 0.034745524 1.180982 0.826814725 7.963377 1.184587 2.749322ACO2_NBIO_IDLEX00008.646179 13.35354 157.1739 817.5579223 92.23189 0 0 206.7122 0ACO2_NBIO_RUNEX259.6914 330.0495 340.6104 409.1994 802.8379 845.4343 1289.87 1847.097548 1344.381 1395.583774 188.692 1021.106 1675.54ACO2_NBIO_STREX67.47888 87.63773 87.09938 104.0838 20.18243 11.54073 11.00803 0.314163972 10.26522 5.758558013 50.07102 5.489121 23.04082ANOX_IDLEX00000.04149 0.082396 1.013523 4.433588742 0.427804 0 0 1.577129 0ANOX_RUNEX0.04387 0.134644 0.061774 0.080621 0.556519 0.729856 1.587068 3.256305124 0.937984 2.453214755 0.563376 3.319508 1.392781ANOX_STREX0.254825 0.393724 0.320782 0.395298 0.465797 0.284748 1.203563 2.389547531 1.064922 0.082629307 0.148145 0.436452 0.288521APM10_IDLEX00000.000583 0.001242 0.003193 0.00382705 0.000258 0 0 0.001868 0APM10_PMBW0.006473 0.008092 0.007714 0.007763 0.078 0.091 0.045537 0.095966343 0.048875 0.108503795 0.012 0.045856 0.044944APM10_PMTW0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.009205 0.010503 0.012 0.034489957 0.012 0.029362212 0.004 0.010401 0.013263APM10_RUNEX0.001284 0.001981 0.001387 0.001452 0.011044 0.017883 0.019459 0.025838358 0.009244 0.006841902 0.002007 0.015063 0.022185APM10_STREX0.002148 0.003033 0.002192 0.002343 0.000226 0.000124 0.000144 5.80933E‐06 0.000103 1.53331E‐05 0.00407 7.3E‐05 0.000366APM25_IDLEX00000.000558 0.001188 0.003055 0.0036571 0.000247 0 0 0.001786 0APM25_PMBW0.002266 0.002832 0.0027 0.002717 0.0273 0.03185 0.015938 0.03358822 0.017106 0.037976328 0.0042 0.01605 0.01573APM25_PMTW0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002301 0.002626 0.003 0.008622489 0.003 0.007340553 0.001 0.0026 0.003316APM25_RUNEX0.001182 0.001823 0.001276 0.001338 0.010525 0.017087 0.018606 0.024714035 0.008837 0.006541322 0.00188 0.014384 0.021174APM25_STREX0.001975 0.002789 0.002016 0.002154 0.000208 0.000114 0.000133 5.34147E‐06 9.43E‐05 1.40982E‐05 0.003836 6.72E‐05 0.000336AROG_DIURN0.26835 0.541709 0.221107 0.258579 0.106699 0.067526 0.033927 0.000990911 0.031466 0.020632524 3.591267 0.04821 30.99292AROG_HTSK0.083501 0.156968 0.067318 0.076201 0.029577 0.018923 0.008815 0.000277007 0.008914 0.008235262 3.559039 0.013387 9.081418AROG_IDLEX00000.023151 0.017296 0.030931 0.292803386 0.033214 0 0 0.240147 0AROG_RESTL0000000 00 0000AROG_RUNEX0.009286 0.028352 0.010231 0.013474 0.073796 0.101087 0.067756 0.047888834 0.033424 0.1357341 1.054922 0.095821 0.086389AROG_RUNLS0.211767 0.454429 0.169917 0.203112 0.157593 0.099695 0.072571 0.00228653 0.037539 0.013372663 3.722371 0.038841 0.212214AROG_STREX0.341077 0.56784 0.37384 0.477508 0.117993 0.071836 0.06656 3.67766E‐06 0.056012 0.030119815 1.43267 0.046513 0.121931ASO2_IDLEX00008.44E‐05 0.000128 0.00146 0.006976097 0.000867 0 0 0.001897 0ASO2_RUNEX0.002567 0.003263 0.003367 0.004043 0.007858 0.008163 0.012283 0.016379507 0.012786 0.012831163 0.001865 0.009573 0.016424ASO2_STREX0.000667 0.000866 0.000861 0.001029 0.0002 0.000114 0.000109 3.10583E‐06 0.000101 5.69292E‐05 0.000495 5.43E‐05 0.000228ATOG_DIURN0.26835 0.541709 0.221107 0.258579 0.106699 0.067526 0.033927 0.000990911 0.031466 0.020632524 0.079785 0.04821 30.99292ATOG_HTSK0.083501 0.156968 0.067318 0.076201 0.029577 0.018923 0.008815 0.000277007 0.008914 0.008235262 3.559039 0.013387 9.081418ATOG_IDLEX00000.033059 0.023687 0.050034 0.581792813 0.045587 0 0 0.379854 0ATOG_RESTL0000000 00 0000ATOG_RUNEX0.013526 0.041328 0.014909 0.019588 0.092109 0.11899 0.089867 0.333972521 0.046122 0.310020775 1.259821 0.199994 0.11607ATOG_RUNLS0.211767 0.454429 0.169917 0.203112 0.157593 0.099695 0.072571 0.00228653 0.037539 0.013372663 3.722371 0.038841 0.212214ATOG_STREX0.373434 0.621711 0.409307 0.522807 0.129188 0.078652 0.072875 4.02657E‐06 0.061326 0.032977406 1.557156 0.050926 0.133499A N2O_IDLEX00000.000579 0.001539 0.02402 0.13255086 0.013678 0 0 0.025995 0A N2O_RUNEX 0.004517 0.009516 0.005537 0.007168 0.036138 0.078716 0.152285 0.295493031 0.166825 0.202933551 0.038859 0.124283 0.072767A N2O_STREX 0.031132 0.03862 0.036088 0.038726 0.038447 0.022541 0.007862 7.71952E‐07 0.010804 0.010808291 0.008671 0.004857 0.029453CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Emission Factors Input
Year 2022FleetMixLandUseSubType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHResearch & Development0.49511 0.045708 0.246625 0.140491 0.026659 0.005444 0.009345 0.0027140.002438 0.000828 0.022216 0.000437 0.001985CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Fleet Mix Input
Year 2028Season EmissionType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHACH4_IDLEX00000.004475 0.002498 0.015771 0.244589156 0.006819 0 0 0.106197 0ACH4_RUNEX0.001247 0.002808 0.001586 0.001636 0.003705 0.004003 0.009889 0.210385046 0.00909 0.595659616 0.132675 0.076022 0.005831ACH4_STREX0.048613 0.065494 0.05543 0.058423 0.016303 0.008491 0.009749 4.17389E‐07 0.009014 0.004543104 0.151107 0.008903 0.022479ACO_IDLEX00000.19149 0.139468 0.653726 4.640025913 0.500022 0 0 2.676938 0ACO_RUNEX0.460643 0.764226 0.542025 0.540657 0.561033 0.353178 0.210941 1.546629378 0.175707 6.857789564 9.971326 1.081134 0.400282ACO_STREX2.324869 3.293847 2.623919 2.63916 2.290464 1.230054 1.082402 0.020743608 0.914696 0.885179045 7.601536 1.225412 1.986345ACO2_NBIO_IDLEX00007.846213 12.94056 138.6188 724.8498733 90.034 0 0 204.4141 0ACO2_NBIO_RUNEX220.3739 288.3348 291.9577 347.8262 690.1582 728.1358 1180.586 1615.273795 1236.239 1017.304249 185.5578 906.8736 1661.119ACO2_NBIO_STREX57.41998 74.24031 73.80262 87.42518 17.45737 9.064233 9.99032 0.239879315 8.288181 5.315426302 41.2827 6.426288 20.41271ANOX_IDLEX00000.03038 0.062892 0.658013 3.475268353 0.360331 0 0 1.152442 0ANOX_RUNEX0.024111 0.060057 0.033364 0.035363 0.232595 0.338676 0.70264 2.116091531 0.672011 0.228990266 0.480774 1.864861 1.040647ANOX_STREX0.188378 0.257362 0.22345 0.240121 0.330058 0.177567 1.222614 2.730957724 1.092842 0.04603264 0.097717 0.498324 0.260049APM10_IDLEX00000.000626 0.001399 0.000967 0.002463221 0.000218 0 0 0.000994 0APM10_PMBW0.006367 0.007981 0.007737 0.007757 0.075758 0.088223 0.044459 0.094010231 0.048979 0.14979202 0.012 0.044042 0.044941APM10_PMTW0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.009301 0.010564 0.012 0.03452676 0.012 0.056781734 0.004 0.009948 0.013325APM10_RUNEX0.000918 0.001228 0.001005 0.000986 0.007271 0.013096 0.007258 0.021912582 0.007902 0.004320657 0.00206 0.008743 0.013075APM10_STREX0.001646 0.002032 0.001681 0.001656 0.000128 5.84E‐05 0.000123 2.98369E‐06 8.89E‐05 2.48804E‐05 0.003683 8.88E‐05 0.000264APM25_IDLEX00000.000599 0.001339 0.000925 0.002350605 0.000209 0 0 0.000949 0APM25_PMBW0.002228 0.002793 0.002708 0.002715 0.026515 0.030878 0.015561 0.032903581 0.017143 0.052427207 0.0042 0.015415 0.015729APM25_PMTW0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002325 0.002641 0.003 0.00863169 0.003 0.014195433 0.001 0.002487 0.003331APM25_RUNEX0.000844 0.00113 0.000925 0.000907 0.006924 0.012515 0.006932 0.020958537 0.007554 0.004127766 0.001923 0.008341 0.012471APM25_STREX0.001514 0.001869 0.001546 0.001522 0.000117 5.37E‐05 0.000113 2.7434E‐06 8.18E‐05 2.28766E‐05 0.003447 8.17E‐05 0.000242AROG_DIURN0.22195 0.348907 0.165834 0.179532 0.068163 0.040042 0.019599 0.00044088 0.031159 0.011028389 2.884103 0.052131 14.20722AROG_HTSK0.063971 0.09734 0.047701 0.050044 0.01763 0.009886 0.004793 0.000128569 0.007206 0.003331603 3.541021 0.011841 3.77788AROG_IDLEX00000.018012 0.01351 0.024824 0.27865587 0.032764 0 0 0.312261 0AROG_RESTL0000000 00 0000AROG_RUNEX0.004538 0.011865 0.005742 0.006105 0.044152 0.07262 0.021503 0.026010681 0.019181 0.048130302 0.818771 0.056077 0.044196AROG_RUNLS0.172428 0.275347 0.126771 0.13766 0.100462 0.0566 0.040272 0.000930540.036138 0.012603449 3.687565 0.037694 0.091515AROG_STREX0.221434 0.316772 0.244902 0.268343 0.077929 0.040449 0.050365 2.26167E‐06 0.044936 0.016246414 1.08739 0.051364 0.087876ASO2_IDLEX00007.64E‐05 0.000124 0.001278 0.005930253 0.000846 0 0 0.001867 0ASO2_RUNEX0.002178 0.00285 0.002886 0.003437 0.006741 0.007009 0.011227 0.013993365 0.011715 0.007955402 0.001834 0.008493 0.016274ASO2_STREX0.000568 0.000734 0.00073 0.000864 0.000173 8.96E‐05 9.88E‐05 2.37145E‐06 8.19E‐05 5.25484E‐05 0.000408 6.35E‐05 0.000202ATOG_DIURN0.22195 0.348907 0.165834 0.179532 0.068163 0.040042 0.019599 0.00044088 0.031159 0.011028389 0.070259 0.052131 14.20722ATOG_HTSK0.063971 0.09734 0.047701 0.050044 0.01763 0.009886 0.004793 0.000128569 0.007206 0.003331603 3.541021 0.011841 3.77788ATOG_IDLEX00000.025487 0.017952 0.044168 0.550040886 0.04363 0 0 0.488774 0ATOG_RESTL0000000 00 0000ATOG_RUNEX0.006615 0.017312 0.008365 0.008883 0.053412 0.083749 0.034287 0.240160079 0.030537 0.651171439 1.006867 0.142462 0.055621ATOG_RUNLS0.172428 0.275347 0.126771 0.13766 0.100462 0.0566 0.040272 0.000930540.036138 0.012603449 3.687565 0.037694 0.091515ATOG_STREX0.242442 0.346826 0.268137 0.293802 0.085322 0.044286 0.055143 2.47624E‐06 0.049199 0.017787779 1.183043 0.056237 0.096213A N2O_IDLEX00000.000552 0.001588 0.021161 0.118765975 0.013488 0 0 0.023894 0A N2O_RUNEX 0.003094 0.005259 0.003883 0.00446 0.033798 0.073929 0.135731 0.260264408 0.162224 0.151235705 0.035446 0.099175 0.067071A N2O_STREX 0.024967 0.030146 0.029087 0.029477 0.028727 0.014935 0.007494 2.33716E‐07 0.008529 0.007189405 0.006084 0.006165 0.029668CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Emission Factors Input
Year 2028FleetMixLandUseSubType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHEnclosed Parking with Elevator0.411757 0.041436 0.297526 0.170986 0.030624 0.007023 0.00842 0.0024360.002246 0.000679 0.024361 0.000402 0.002104Research & Development0.411757 0.041436 0.297526 0.170986 0.030624 0.007023 0.00842 0.0024360.002246 0.000679 0.024361 0.000402 0.002104CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Fleet Mix Input
Attachment 4: Project Construction Emissions and Health Risk
Calculations
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA
DPM Construction Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates - Unmitigated
Emiss ions
per
Construction DPM Source No. DPM Emissions Point Source
Year Activity (ton/year) Type Sources (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (g/s)
2023 Construction 0.0620 Point 467 123.9 0.03994 5.03E-03 1.08E-05
2024 Construction 0.1853 Point 467 370.5 0.11943 1.50E-02 3.22E-05
2025 Construction 0.0279 Point 467 55.9 0.01800 2.27E-03 4.86E-06
2026 Construction 0.0554 Point 467 110.9 0.03574 4.50E-03 9.64E-06
2027 Construction 0.0179 Point 467 35.7 0.01151 1.45E-03 3.11E-06
Total 0.3484 696.9 0.2246 0.0283
Emissions assumed to be evenly distributed over each construction areas
hr/day = 8.5 (7am - 3:30pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 3102.5
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA
PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions for Modeling - Unmitigated
PM2.5
Modeled Emission
Construction Area PM2.5 Emissions Area Rate
Year Activity Source (ton/year) (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s)(m2) g/s/m
2
2023 Construction CON_FUG 0.0107 21.4 0.00691 8.70E-04 23,245 3.74E-08
2024 Construction CON_FUG 0.4048 809.7 0.26097 3.29E-02 23,245 1.41E-06
2025 Construction CON_FUG 0.0072 14.4 0.00465 5.86E-04 23,245 2.52E-08
2026 Construction CON_FUG 0.0072 14.4 0.00465 5.86E-04 23,245 2.52E-08
2027 Construction CON_FUG 0.0017 3.4 0.00108 1.36E-04 23,245 5.87E-09
Total 0.4316 863.3 0.2783 0.0351
Construction Hours
hr/day = 8.5 (7am - 3:30pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 3102.5
DPM Construction Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates - With Mitigation
Emiss ions
per
Construction DPM Source No. DPM Emissions Point Source
Year Activity (ton/year) Type Sources (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (g/s)
2023 Construction 0.0094 Point 467 18.7 0.00604 7.61E-04 1.63E-06
2024 Construction 0.0328 Point 467 65.5 0.02112 2.66E-03 5.70E-06
2025 Construction 0.0241 Point 467 48.3 0.01555 1.96E-03 4.20E-06
2026 Construction 0.0298 Point 467 59.7 0.01923 2.42E-03 5.19E-06
2027 Construction 0.0065 Point 467 12.9 0.00416 5.24E-04 1.12E-06
Total 0.1026 205.1 0.0661 0.0083
Emissions assumed to be evenly distributed over each construction areas
hr/day = 8.5 (7am - 3:30pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 3102.5
PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Construction Emissions for Modeling - With Mitigation
PM2.5
Modeled Emission
Construction Area PM2.5 Emissions Area Rate
Year Activity Source (ton/year) (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s)(m2) g/s/m
2
2023 Construction CON_FUG 0.0065 13.0 0.00418 5.27E-04 23,245 2.27E-08
2024 Construction CON_FUG 0.1861 372.3 0.11999 1.51E-02 23,245 6.50E-07
2025 Construction CON_FUG 0.0072 14.4 0.00465 5.86E-04 23,245 2.52E-08
2026 Construction CON_FUG 0.0072 14.4 0.00465 5.86E-04 23,245 2.52E-08
2027 Construction CON_FUG 0.0017 3.4 0.00108 1.36E-04 23,245 5.87E-09
Total 0.2087 417.4 0.1345 0.0170
Construction Hours
hr/day = 8.5 (7am - 3:30pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 3102.5
800 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Construction Health Impact Summary
Maximum Impacts at MEI Location - Without Mitigation
Maximum Concentrations Maximum
Exhaust Fugitive Hazard Annual PM2.5
Emissions PM10/DPM PM2.5 Index Concentration
Year (μg/m
3)(μg/m3) Infant/Child (-) (μg/m
3)
2023 0.0048 0.0010 2.63 0.00 0.01
2024 0.0145 0.0370 7.84 0.00 0.05
2025 0.0022 0.0007 0.15 0.00 0.00
2026 0.0043 0.0007 0.31 0.00 0.00
2027 0.0014 0.0002 0.10 0.00 0.00
Total --11.03 -
Maximum 0.0145 0.0370 - 0.00 0.05
Maximum Impacts at MEI Location - With Mitigation
Maximum Concentrations Maximum
Exhaust Fugitive Hazard Annual PM2.5
Emissions PM10/DPM PM2.5 Index Concentration
Year (μg/m
3)(μg/m3) Infant/Child (-) (μg/m
3)
2023 0.0007 0.0006 0.40 0.00 0.00
2024 0.0026 0.0170 1.39 0.00 0.02
2025 0.0019 0.0007 0.13 0.00 0.00
2026 0.0023 0.0007 0.16 0.00 0.00
2027 0.0005 0.0002 0.04 0.00 0.00
Total --2.12 --
Maximum 0.0026 0.0170 - 0.00 0.02
- Electrified dewatering pumps, lifts, compressors, cranes, welders, forklifts, and hoists also included as Mitigation Measures
- Tier 4 interim engines, and BMPs as Mitigation Measures.
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Cancer Risk
(per million)
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Construction
Impacts at Gateway Child Development Center YMCA - 1 meter - Infant Exposure
Student Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x SCAF x 8-Hr BR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
SCAF = School Child Adjustment Factor (unitless) for source operation
and exposures different than 8 hours/day
= (24/SHR) x (7days/SDay) x (SCHR/8 hrs)
SHR = Hours/day of emission source operation
SDay = Number of days per week of source operation
SCHR = School operation hours while emission source in operation
8-Hr BR = Eight-hour breathing rate (L/kg body weight-per 8 hrs)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant Child
Age --> 0 - <2 2 - <16
Parameter
ASF = 10 3
DPM CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
8-Hr BR* = 1200 520
SCHR = 9 9
SHR = 9 9
SDay = 5 5
A = 1 1
EF = 250 250
AT = 70 70
SCAF = 4.20 4.20
* 95th percentile 8-hr breathing rates for moderate intensity activities
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Preschool Impact Receptor Location
Child - Exposure Information Child
Exposure Age* Cancer Maximum
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total
Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Index PM2.5 PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 2023 0.0048 10 2.63 0.0010 0.001 0.01
2 1 1 - 2 2024 0.0145 10 7.84 0.0029 0.037 0.05
3 1 2 - 3 2025 0.0022 3 0.15 0.0004 0.001 0.00
4 1 3 - 4 2026 0.0043 3 0.31 0.0009 0.001 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 2027 0.0014 3 0.10 0.0003 0.000 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 11.03
* Children assumed to be 3 months of age with 5 years of exposure to construction emissions
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - With Mitigation
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Construction
Impacts at Gateway Child Development Center YMCA - 1 meter - Infant Exposure
Student Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x SCAF x 8-Hr BR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
SCAF = School Child Adjustment Factor (unitless) for source operation
and exposures different than 8 hours/day
= (24/SHR) x (7days/SDay) x (SCHR/8 hrs)
SHR = Hours/day of emission source operation
SDay = Number of days per week of source operation
SCHR = School operation hours while emission source in operation
8-Hr BR = Eight-hour breathing rate (L/kg body weight-per 8 hrs)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant Child
Age --> 0 - <2 2 - <16
Parameter
ASF = 10 3
DPM CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
8-Hr BR* = 1200 520
SCHR = 9 9
SHR = 9 9
SDay = 5 5
A = 1 1
EF = 250 250
AT = 70 70
SCAF = 4.20 4.20
* 95th percentile 8-hr breathing rates for moderate intensity activities
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Preschool Impact Receptor Location
Child - Exposure Information Child
Exposure Age* Cancer Maximum
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total
Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Index PM2.5 PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 2023 0.0007 10 0.40 0.0001 0.001 0.00
2 1 1 - 2 2024 0.0026 10 1.39 0.0005 0.017 0.02
3 1 2 - 3 2025 0.0019 3 0.13 0.0004 0.001 0.00
4 1 3 - 4 2026 0.0023 3 0.16 0.0005 0.001 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 2027 0.0005 3 0.04 0.0001 0.000 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 2.12
* Children assumed to be 3 months of age with 5 years of exposure to construction emissions
Attachment 5: Community Risk Modeling Information and Calculations
800 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Standby Emergency Generator Impacts
Off‐site Sensitive Receptors
MEI Location = 1 meter receptor height
DPM Emissions per Generator
Max Daily Annual
Source Type (lb/day) (lb/year)
(3) 2,800kw, (2) 1,000kw, (1) 600kw
Generator 0.088 32.20
CalEEMod DPM Emissions 1.61E‐02 tons/year
Model AERMOD
Source Diesel Generator Engine
Source Type Point
Meteorological Data 2013 ‐ 2017 San Francisco International Meteorological Data
Generator Engine Size (hp) 3753, 1341, & 804
Stack Height (ft) 10.00
Stack Diameter (ft)** 0.60
Exhaust Gas Flowrate (CFM)* 2527.73
Stack Exit Velocity (ft/sec)** 149.00
Exhaust Temperature (˚F)** 872.00
Emissions Rate (lb/hr) 0.003676
* AERMOD default
**BAAQMD default generator parameters
DPM Emission Rates
Modeling Information
Point Source Stack Parameters
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Cancer Risks from Project Operation
Project Emergency Generators
Impacts at Off-Site Gateway Child Development Center YMCA - 1m MEI Receptor Heights
Impact at Project MEI (5-year Exposure)
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
SAF = Student Adjustment Factor (unitless)
= (24 hrs/9 hrs) x (7 days/5 days) = 3.73
8-Hr BR = Eight-hour breathing rate (L/kg body weight-per 8 hrs)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
DBR* = 361 1200 520 240
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 250 250 250 250
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 3.73 1.00
* 95th percentile 8-hr breathing rates for moderate intensity activities
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
Infant/Child - Exposure Information Infant/Child
Exposure Age Cancer
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total
Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Index PM2.5 PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 2028 0.0012 3 0.08
2 1 1 - 2 2029 0.0012 3 0.08
3 1 2 - 3 2030 0.0012 3 0.08 0.00024 0.0012 0.0024
4 1 3 - 4 2031 0.0012 3 0.08 0.00024 0.0012 0.0024
5 1 4 - 5 2032 0.0012 3 0.08 0.00024 0.0012 0.0024
Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.38 Max 0.00024 0.0012 0.0024
Evaporative Cooling Tower PM Emissions
Total Water Flow Rate (gpm) 750
Cooling Tower Circulating Water TDS (ppm)* 96
Mist Eliminator Efficiency (%) 0.001
Total Cooling Tower Drift (gpm) 0.01
Particulate Matter Emissions
PM PM10 PM2.5
Fraction of PM**1.00 0.70 0.42
Hourly (lb/hr) 3.60E-04 2.52E-04 1.51E-04
Daily (lb/day) 0.01 0.01 0.00
Annual lb/yr) 3.16 2.21 1.33
Annual (ton/yr) 0.00 0.00 0.00
* Maximum TDS value based on 2021 South San Francisco Water Quality Report
** South Coast AQMD, Final-Methodology to Calculate Particulate
Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds, Appendix A.
800 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, CA - Project Cooling Tower - PM2.5
AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations - Project Cooling Tower
at Gateway Child Development Center YMCA MEI Receptor (1 m receptor height)
Emis s ion Year 2028
Receptor Information Childcare MEI receptor
Number of Receptors 1
Receptor Height 1 meter
Receptor Distances At Childcare MEI location
Meteorological Conditions
BAQMD San Francisco International Airp2013-2017
Land Use Classification Urban
Wind Speed Variable
Wind Direction Variable
PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations
Meteorological
Data Years
2013-2017
PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3)
Preschool MEI
0.00075
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Highway 101
DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
DPM_NB_101 Highway 101 Northbound NB 4 758.0 0.47 20.6 67.7 3.4 68 94,760
DPM_SB_101 Highway 101 Southbound SB 4 757.9 0.47 20.6 67.7 3.4 63 94,760
Total 189,520
Emission Factors
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 70 65 60
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00054 0.000544 0.000486
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emissions - DPM_NB_101
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.26% 1196 8.51E-05 9 6.16% 5840 4.16E-04 17 6.02% 5704 4.06E-04
2 0.78% 736 5.24E-05 10 5.95% 5641 4.02E-04 18 6.33% 6001 4.27E-04
3 0.60% 571 4.06E-05 11 5.73% 5430 3.86E-04 19 5.61% 5319 3.79E-04
4 0.65% 620 4.41E-05 12 5.85% 5548 3.95E-04 20 4.51% 4269 3.04E-04
5 1.29% 1219 8.67E-05 13 6.07% 5749 4.09E-04 21 3.87% 3669 2.61E-04
6 3.08% 2922 2.08E-04 14 5.84% 5532 3.94E-04 22 3.48% 3297 2.35E-04
7 4.76% 4512 3.21E-04 15 5.96% 5644 4.02E-04 23 2.69% 2552 1.82E-04
8 5.70% 5403 3.85E-04 16 5.98% 5666 4.03E-04 24 1.82% 1722 1.23E-04
Total 94,760
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - DPM_SB_101
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 1062 7.56E-05 9 5.45% 5167 3.68E-04 17 6.96% 6599 4.20E-04
2 0.69% 653 4.65E-05 10 5.52% 5229 3.32E-04 18 6.86% 6502 4.13E-04
3 0.62% 584 4.15E-05 11 5.57% 5275 3.35E-04 19 5.66% 5367 3.41E-04
4 0.80% 761 5.41E-05 12 5.89% 5580 3.55E-04 20 4.46% 4228 3.01E-04
5 1.49% 1416 1.01E-04 13 5.97% 5656 3.60E-04 21 3.71% 3513 2.50E-04
6 2.76% 2611 1.86E-04 14 6.13% 5807 3.69E-04 22 3.30% 3129 2.23E-04
7 3.87% 3663 2.61E-04 15 6.76% 6404 4.07E-04 23 2.68% 2536 1.80E-04
8 5.11% 4845 3.45E-04 16 6.83% 6474 4.12E-04 24 1.79% 1700 1.21E-04
Total 94,760
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Highway 101
PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
PM2.5_NB_101 Highway 101 Northbound NB 4 758.0 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 67.708333 94,760
PM2.5_SB_101 Highway 101 Southbound SB 4 757.9 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 62.916667 94,760
Total 189,520
Emission Factors - PM2.5
Speed Category 1 234
Travel Speed (mph) 70 65 60
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.001734 0.00163 0.001434
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_NB_101
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.26% 1196 2.71E-04 9 6.16% 5840 1.24E-03 17 6.02% 5704 1.22E-03
2 0.78% 736 1.67E-04 10 5.95% 5641 1.20E-03 18 6.33% 6001 1.28E-03
3 0.60% 571 1.29E-04 11 5.73% 5430 1.16E-03 19 5.61% 5319 1.21E-03
4 0.65% 620 1.41E-04 12 5.85% 5548 1.18E-03 20 4.51% 4269 9.69E-04
5 1.29% 1219 2.76E-04 13 6.07% 5749 1.23E-03 21 3.87% 3669 8.32E-04
6 3.08% 2922 6.63E-04 14 5.84% 5532 1.18E-03 22 3.48% 3297 7.48E-04
7 4.76% 4512 1.02E-03 15 5.96% 5644 1.20E-03 23 2.69% 2552 5.79E-04
8 5.70% 5403 1.15E-03 16 5.98% 5666 1.21E-03 24 1.82% 1722 3.91E-04
Total 94,760
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_SB_101
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 1062 2.26E-04 9 5.45% 5167 1.10E-03 17 6.96% 6599 1.24E-03
2 0.69% 653 1.39E-04 10 5.52% 5229 9.81E-04 18 6.86% 6502 1.22E-03
3 0.62% 584 1.24E-04 11 5.57% 5275 9.90E-04 19 5.66% 5367 1.01E-03
4 0.80% 761 1.62E-04 12 5.89% 5580 1.05E-03 20 4.46% 4228 9.01E-04
5 1.49% 1416 3.02E-04 13 5.97% 5656 1.06E-03 21 3.71% 3513 7.49E-04
6 2.76% 2611 5.56E-04 14 6.13% 5807 1.09E-03 22 3.30% 3129 6.67E-04
7 3.87% 3663 7.81E-04 15 6.76% 6404 1.20E-03 23 2.68% 2536 5.40E-04
8 5.11% 4845 1.03E-03 16 6.83% 6474 1.21E-03 24 1.79% 1700 3.62E-04
Total 94,760
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Highway 101
TOG Exhaust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Exhaust Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
TEXH_NB_AIR
Highway 101
Northbound NB 4 758.0 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 67.708333 94,760
TEXH_SB_AIR
Highway 101
Southbound SB 4 757.9 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 62.916667 94,760
Total 189,520
Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 70 65 60
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03830 0.03537 0.03132
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_NB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.26% 1196 5.99E-03 9 6.16% 5840 2.70E-02 17 6.02% 5704 2.64E-02
2 0.78% 736 3.69E-03 10 5.95% 5641 2.61E-02 18 6.33% 6001 2.78E-02
3 0.60% 571 2.86E-03 11 5.73% 5430 2.51E-02 19 5.61% 5319 2.67E-02
4 0.65% 620 3.11E-03 12 5.85% 5548 2.57E-02 20 4.51% 4269 2.14E-02
5 1.29% 1219 6.11E-03 13 6.07% 5749 2.66E-02 21 3.87% 3669 1.84E-02
6 3.08% 2922 1.46E-02 14 5.84% 5532 2.56E-02 22 3.48% 3297 1.65E-02
7 4.76% 4512 2.26E-02 15 5.96% 5644 2.61E-02 23 2.69% 2552 1.28E-02
8 5.70% 5403 2.50E-02 16 5.98% 5666 2.62E-02 24 1.82% 1722 8.63E-03
Total 94,760
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_SB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.26% 1196 5.53E-03 9 6.16% 5840 2.70E-02 17 6.02% 5704 2.34E-02
2 0.78% 736 3.40E-03 10 5.95% 5641 2.31E-02 18 6.33% 6001 2.46E-02
3 0.60% 571 2.64E-03 11 5.73% 5430 2.22E-02 19 5.61% 5319 2.18E-02
4 0.65% 620 2.87E-03 12 5.85% 5548 2.27E-02 20 4.51% 4269 1.98E-02
5 1.29% 1219 5.64E-03 13 6.07% 5749 2.36E-02 21 3.87% 3669 1.70E-02
6 3.08% 2922 1.35E-02 14 5.84% 5532 2.27E-02 22 3.48% 3297 1.53E-02
7 4.76% 4512 2.09E-02 15 5.96% 5644 2.31E-02 23 2.69% 2552 1.18E-02
8 5.70% 5403 2.50E-02 16 5.98% 5666 2.32E-02 24 1.82% 1722 7.97E-03
Total 94,760
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Highway 101
TOG Evaporative Emissions Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Evaporative Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
TEVAP_NB_AIR Highway 101 Northbound NB 4 758.0 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 67.70833394,760
TEVAP_SB_AIR Highway 101 Southbound SB 4 757.9 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 62.91666794,760
Total 189,520
Emission Factors - PM2.5 - Evaporative TOG
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 70 65 60
Emissions per Vehicle per Hour (g/hour)1.22842 1.22842 1.22842
Emissions per Vehicle per Mile (g/VMT) 0.01755 0.01890 0.02047
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_NB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.26% 1196 2.75E-03 9 6.16% 5840 1.44E-02 17 6.02% 5704 1.41E-02
2 0.78% 736 1.69E-03 10 5.95% 5641 1.39E-02 18 6.33% 6001 1.48E-02
3 0.60% 571 1.31E-03 11 5.73% 5430 1.34E-02 19 5.61% 5319 1.22E-02
4 0.65% 620 1.42E-03 12 5.85% 5548 1.37E-02 20 4.51% 4269 9.80E-03
5 1.29% 1219 2.80E-03 13 6.07% 5749 1.42E-02 21 3.87% 3669 8.42E-03
6 3.08% 2922 6.71E-03 14 5.84% 5532 1.37E-02 22 3.48% 3297 7.57E-03
7 4.76% 4512 1.04E-02 15 5.96% 5644 1.40E-02 23 2.69% 2552 5.86E-03
8 5.70% 5403 1.34E-02 16 5.98% 5666 1.40E-02 24 1.82% 1722 3.95E-03
Total 94,760
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_SB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.26% 1196 2.96E-03 9 6.16% 5840 1.44E-02 17 6.02% 5704 1.53E-02
2 0.78% 736 1.82E-03 10 5.95% 5641 1.51E-02 18 6.33% 6001 1.61E-02
3 0.60% 571 1.41E-03 11 5.73% 5430 1.45E-02 19 5.61% 5319 1.42E-02
4 0.65% 620 1.53E-03 12 5.85% 5548 1.49E-02 20 4.51% 4269 1.06E-02
5 1.29% 1219 3.01E-03 13 6.07% 5749 1.54E-02 21 3.87% 3669 9.07E-03
6 3.08% 2922 7.22E-03 14 5.84% 5532 1.48E-02 22 3.48% 3297 8.15E-03
7 4.76% 4512 1.12E-02 15 5.96% 5644 1.51E-02 23 2.69% 2552 6.31E-03
8 5.70% 5403 1.34E-02 16 5.98% 5666 1.52E-02 24 1.82% 1722 4.26E-03
Total 94,760
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Highway 101
Fugitive Road PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and Fugitive Road PM2.5 Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
FUG_NB_AIR Highway 101 Northbound NB 4 758.0 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 67.708333 94,760
FUG_SB_AIR Highway 101 Southbound SB 4 757.9 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 62.916667 94,760
Total 189,520
Emission Factors - Fugitive PM2.5
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 70 65 60
Tire Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00206 0.00206 0.00206
Brake Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01720 0.01720 0.01720
Road Dust - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00769 0.00769 0.00769
otal Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.02694 0.02694 0.02694
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_NB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.26% 1196 4.22E-03 9 6.16% 5840 2.06E-02 17 6.02% 5704 2.01E-02
2 0.78% 736 2.59E-03 10 5.95% 5641 1.99E-02 18 6.33% 6001 2.11E-02
3 0.60% 571 2.01E-03 11 5.73% 5430 1.91E-02 19 5.61% 5319 1.87E-02
4 0.65% 620 2.19E-03 12 5.85% 5548 1.96E-02 20 4.51% 4269 1.50E-02
5 1.29% 1219 4.29E-03 13 6.07% 5749 2.03E-02 21 3.87% 3669 1.29E-02
6 3.08% 2922 1.03E-02 14 5.84% 5532 1.95E-02 22 3.48% 3297 1.16E-02
7 4.76% 4512 1.59E-02 15 5.96% 5644 1.99E-02 23 2.69% 2552 8.99E-03
8 5.70% 5403 1.90E-02 16 5.98% 5666 2.00E-02 24 1.82% 1722 6.07E-03
Total 94,760
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_SB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.26% 1196 4.22E-03 9 6.16% 5840 2.06E-02 17 6.02% 5704 2.01E-02
2 0.78% 736 2.59E-03 10 5.95% 5641 1.99E-02 18 6.33% 6001 2.11E-02
3 0.60% 571 2.01E-03 11 5.73% 5430 1.91E-02 19 5.61% 5319 1.87E-02
4 0.65% 620 2.18E-03 12 5.85% 5548 1.95E-02 20 4.51% 4269 1.50E-02
5 1.29% 1219 4.29E-03 13 6.07% 5749 2.03E-02 21 3.87% 3669 1.29E-02
6 3.08% 2922 1.03E-02 14 5.84% 5532 1.95E-02 22 3.48% 3297 1.16E-02
7 4.76% 4512 1.59E-02 15 5.96% 5644 1.99E-02 23 2.69% 2552 8.99E-03
8 5.70% 5403 1.90E-02 16 5.98% 5666 2.00E-02 24 1.82% 1722 6.07E-03
Total 94,760
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd
DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
DPM_NB_AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 759.4 0.47 13.3 43.7 3.4 35 11,196
DPM_SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 759.6 0.47 13.3 43.7 3.4 35 11,196
Total 22,392
Emission Factors
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 35
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00025
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emissions - DPM_NB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 3.81% 427 1.42E-05 9 6.66% 746 2.47E-05 17 6.50% 728 2.41E-05
2 3.15% 353 1.17E-05 10 8.16% 913 3.03E-05 18 3.85% 431 1.43E-05
3 2.32% 260 8.62E-06 11 6.33% 709 2.35E-05 19 2.35% 263 8.74E-06
4 1.00% 111 3.69E-06 12 7.66% 858 2.84E-05 20 1.19% 133 4.43E-06
5 1.00% 111 3.69E-06 13 6.83% 765 2.54E-05 21 3.02% 338 1.12E-05
6 2.16% 241 8.00E-06 14 6.66% 746 2.47E-05 22 5.01% 560 1.86E-05
7 4.67% 523 1.74E-05 15 6.00% 672 2.23E-05 23 3.32% 371 1.23E-05
8 3.35% 375 1.24E-05 16 4.34% 486 1.61E-05 24 0.66% 74 2.46E-06
Total 11,196
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - DPM_SB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 3.81% 427 1.42E-05 9 6.66% 746 2.48E-05 17 6.50% 728 2.41E-05
2 3.15% 353 1.17E-05 10 8.16% 913 3.03E-05 18 3.85% 431 1.43E-05
3 2.32% 260 8.62E-06 11 6.33% 709 2.35E-05 19 2.35% 263 8.74E-06
4 1.00% 111 3.70E-06 12 7.66% 858 2.84E-05 20 1.19% 133 4.43E-06
5 1.00% 111 3.70E-06 13 6.83% 765 2.54E-05 21 3.02% 338 1.12E-05
6 2.16% 241 8.01E-06 14 6.66% 746 2.48E-05 22 5.01% 560 1.86E-05
7 4.67% 523 1.74E-05 15 6.00% 672 2.23E-05 23 3.32% 371 1.23E-05
8 3.35% 375 1.24E-05 16 4.34% 486 1.61E-05 24 0.66% 74 2.46E-06
Total 11,196
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd
PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
PM2.5_NB_AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 759.4 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196
PM2.5_SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 759.6 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196
Total 22,392
Emission Factors - PM2.5
Speed Category 1 234
Travel Speed (mph) 35
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.001407
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_NB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 125 2.31E-05 9 7.12% 797 1.47E-04 17 7.43% 832 1.53E-04
2 0.41% 46 8.53E-06 10 4.37% 490 9.03E-05 18 8.24% 922 1.70E-04
3 0.37% 42 7.74E-06 11 4.65% 521 9.60E-05 19 5.72% 640 1.18E-04
4 0.17% 19 3.52E-06 12 5.89% 659 1.22E-04 20 4.30% 482 8.88E-05
5 0.46% 52 9.50E-06 13 6.17% 691 1.27E-04 21 3.25% 364 6.71E-05
6 0.85% 95 1.75E-05 14 6.05% 678 1.25E-04 22 3.31% 371 6.84E-05
7 3.73% 418 7.70E-05 15 7.06% 790 1.46E-04 23 2.48% 278 5.13E-05
8 7.77% 870 1.60E-04 16 7.19% 805 1.48E-04 24 1.87% 210 3.87E-05
Total 11,196
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_SB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 125 2.31E-05 9 7.12% 797 1.47E-04 17 7.43% 832 1.54E-04
2 0.41% 46 8.53E-06 10 4.37% 490 9.03E-05 18 8.24% 922 1.70E-04
3 0.37% 42 7.74E-06 11 4.65% 521 9.61E-05 19 5.72% 640 1.18E-04
4 0.17% 19 3.52E-06 12 5.89% 659 1.22E-04 20 4.30% 482 8.89E-05
5 0.46% 52 9.50E-06 13 6.17% 691 1.27E-04 21 3.25% 364 6.71E-05
6 0.85% 95 1.75E-05 14 6.05% 678 1.25E-04 22 3.31% 371 6.84E-05
7 3.73% 418 7.71E-05 15 7.06% 790 1.46E-04 23 2.48% 278 5.13E-05
8 7.77% 870 1.60E-04 16 7.19% 805 1.48E-04 24 1.87% 210 3.87E-05
Total 11,196
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd
TOG Exhaust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Exhaust Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
TEXH_NB_AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 759.4 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196
TEXH_SB_AIR
Airport Blvd
Southbound SB 2 759.6 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196
Total 22,392
Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 35
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03611
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_NB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 125 5.94E-04 9 7.12% 797 3.77E-03 17 7.43% 832 3.94E-03
2 0.41% 46 2.19E-04 10 4.37% 490 2.32E-03 18 8.24% 922 4.37E-03
3 0.37% 42 1.99E-04 11 4.65% 521 2.46E-03 19 5.72% 640 3.03E-03
4 0.17% 19 9.03E-05 12 5.89% 659 3.12E-03 20 4.30% 482 2.28E-03
5 0.46% 52 2.44E-04 13 6.17% 691 3.27E-03 21 3.25% 364 1.72E-03
6 0.85% 95 4.49E-04 14 6.05% 678 3.21E-03 22 3.31% 371 1.76E-03
7 3.73% 418 1.98E-03 15 7.06% 790 3.74E-03 23 2.48% 278 1.32E-03
8 7.77% 870 4.12E-03 16 7.19% 805 3.81E-03 24 1.87% 210 9.93E-04
Total 11,196
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_SB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 125 5.94E-04 9 7.12% 797 3.77E-03 17 7.43% 832 3.94E-03
2 0.41% 46 2.19E-04 10 4.37% 490 2.32E-03 18 8.24% 922 4.37E-03
3 0.37% 42 1.99E-04 11 4.65% 521 2.47E-03 19 5.72% 640 3.03E-03
4 0.17% 19 9.03E-05 12 5.89% 659 3.12E-03 20 4.30% 482 2.28E-03
5 0.46% 52 2.44E-04 13 6.17% 691 3.27E-03 21 3.25% 364 1.72E-03
6 0.85% 95 4.49E-04 14 6.05% 678 3.21E-03 22 3.31% 371 1.76E-03
7 3.73% 418 1.98E-03 15 7.06% 790 3.74E-03 23 2.48% 278 1.32E-03
8 7.77% 870 4.12E-03 16 7.19% 805 3.81E-03 24 1.87% 210 9.93E-04
Total 11,196
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd
TOG Evaporative Emissions Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Evaporative Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
TEVAP_NB_AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 759.4 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196
TEVAP_SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 759.6 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196
Total 22,392
Emission Factors - PM2.5 - Evaporative TOG
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 35
Emissions per Vehicle per Hour (g/hour)1.19210
Emissions per Vehicle per Mile (g/VMT) 0.03406
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_NB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 125 5.60E-04 9 7.12% 797 3.56E-03 17 7.43% 832 3.72E-03
2 0.41% 46 2.07E-04 10 4.37% 490 2.19E-03 18 8.24% 922 4.12E-03
3 0.37% 42 1.87E-04 11 4.65% 521 2.32E-03 19 5.72% 640 2.86E-03
4 0.17% 19 8.52E-05 12 5.89% 659 2.94E-03 20 4.30% 482 2.15E-03
5 0.46% 52 2.30E-04 13 6.17% 691 3.08E-03 21 3.25% 364 1.62E-03
6 0.85% 95 4.24E-04 14 6.05% 678 3.03E-03 22 3.31% 371 1.66E-03
7 3.73% 418 1.87E-03 15 7.06% 790 3.53E-03 23 2.48% 278 1.24E-03
8 7.77% 870 3.88E-03 16 7.19% 805 3.59E-03 24 1.87% 210 9.37E-04
Total 11,196
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_SB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 125 5.60E-04 9 7.12% 797 3.56E-03 17 7.43% 832 3.72E-03
2 0.41% 46 2.07E-04 10 4.37% 490 2.19E-03 18 8.24% 922 4.12E-03
3 0.37% 42 1.87E-04 11 4.65% 521 2.33E-03 19 5.72% 640 2.86E-03
4 0.17% 19 8.52E-05 12 5.89% 659 2.94E-03 20 4.30% 482 2.15E-03
5 0.46% 52 2.30E-04 13 6.17% 691 3.08E-03 21 3.25% 364 1.62E-03
6 0.85% 95 4.24E-04 14 6.05% 678 3.03E-03 22 3.31% 371 1.66E-03
7 3.73% 418 1.87E-03 15 7.06% 790 3.53E-03 23 2.48% 278 1.24E-03
8 7.77% 870 3.88E-03 16 7.19% 805 3.59E-03 24 1.87% 210 9.37E-04
Total 11,196
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd
Fugitive Road PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and Fugitive Road PM2.5 Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
FUG_NB_AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 759.4 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196
FUG_SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 759.6 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196
Total 22,392
Emission Factors - Fugitive PM2.5
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 35
Tire Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00205
Brake Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01681
Road Dust - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01487
otal Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03373
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_NB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 125 5.54E-04 9 7.12% 797 3.52E-03 17 7.43% 832 3.68E-03
2 0.41% 46 2.04E-04 10 4.37% 490 2.17E-03 18 8.24% 922 4.08E-03
3 0.37% 42 1.86E-04 11 4.65% 521 2.30E-03 19 5.72% 640 2.83E-03
4 0.17% 19 8.43E-05 12 5.89% 659 2.91E-03 20 4.30% 482 2.13E-03
5 0.46% 52 2.28E-04 13 6.17% 691 3.05E-03 21 3.25% 364 1.61E-03
6 0.85% 95 4.20E-04 14 6.05% 678 3.00E-03 22 3.31% 371 1.64E-03
7 3.73% 418 1.85E-03 15 7.06% 790 3.49E-03 23 2.48% 278 1.23E-03
8 7.77% 870 3.85E-03 16 7.19% 805 3.56E-03 24 1.87% 210 9.28E-04
Total 11,196
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_SB_AIR
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 125 5.55E-04 9 7.12% 797 3.52E-03 17 7.43% 832 3.68E-03
2 0.41% 46 2.05E-04 10 4.37% 490 2.17E-03 18 8.24% 922 4.08E-03
3 0.37% 42 1.86E-04 11 4.65% 521 2.30E-03 19 5.72% 640 2.83E-03
4 0.17% 19 8.43E-05 12 5.89% 659 2.91E-03 20 4.30% 482 2.13E-03
5 0.46% 52 2.28E-04 13 6.17% 691 3.05E-03 21 3.25% 364 1.61E-03
6 0.85% 95 4.20E-04 14 6.05% 678 3.00E-03 22 3.31% 371 1.64E-03
7 3.73% 418 1.85E-03 15 7.06% 790 3.49E-03 23 2.48% 278 1.23E-03
8 7.77% 870 3.85E-03 16 7.19% 805 3.56E-03 24 1.87% 210 9.28E-04
Total 11,196
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Dubuque Ave
DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
DPM_NB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 31.7 3.4 30 9,325
DPM_SB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 31.7 3.4 30 9,325
Total 18,650
Emission Factors
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 30
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00026
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emissions - DPM_NB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 3.81% 356 1.25E-05 9 6.66% 621 2.19E-05 17 6.50% 606 2.13E-05
2 3.15% 294 1.04E-05 10 8.16% 761 2.68E-05 18 3.85% 359 1.26E-05
3 2.32% 216 7.63E-06 11 6.33% 591 2.08E-05 19 2.35% 219 7.73E-06
4 1.00% 93 3.27E-06 12 7.66% 714 2.52E-05 20 1.19% 111 3.92E-06
5 1.00% 93 3.27E-06 13 6.83% 637 2.24E-05 21 3.02% 281 9.91E-06
6 2.16% 201 7.08E-06 14 6.66% 621 2.19E-05 22 5.01% 467 1.64E-05
7 4.67% 436 1.54E-05 15 6.00% 560 1.97E-05 23 3.32% 309 1.09E-05
8 3.35% 312 1.10E-05 16 4.34% 405 1.43E-05 24 0.66% 62 2.18E-06
Total 9,325
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - DPM_SB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 3.81% 356 1.24E-05 9 6.66% 621 2.17E-05 17 6.50% 606 2.12E-05
2 3.15% 294 1.03E-05 10 8.16% 761 2.66E-05 18 3.85% 359 1.25E-05
3 2.32% 216 7.57E-06 11 6.33% 591 2.07E-05 19 2.35% 219 7.67E-06
4 1.00% 93 3.24E-06 12 7.66% 714 2.50E-05 20 1.19% 111 3.89E-06
5 1.00% 93 3.24E-06 13 6.83% 637 2.23E-05 21 3.02% 281 9.84E-06
6 2.16% 201 7.03E-06 14 6.66% 621 2.17E-05 22 5.01% 467 1.63E-05
7 4.67% 436 1.52E-05 15 6.00% 560 1.96E-05 23 3.32% 309 1.08E-05
8 3.35% 312 1.09E-05 16 4.34% 405 1.42E-05 24 0.66% 62 2.16E-06
Total 9,325
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Dubuque Ave
PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
PM2.5_NB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325
PM2.5_SB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325
Total 18,650
Emission Factors - PM2.5
Speed Category 1 234
Travel Speed (mph) 30
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.001668
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_NB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 104 2.33E-05 9 7.12% 664 1.48E-04 17 7.43% 693 1.54E-04
2 0.41% 39 8.58E-06 10 4.37% 408 9.08E-05 18 8.24% 768 1.71E-04
3 0.37% 35 7.78E-06 11 4.65% 434 9.65E-05 19 5.72% 533 1.19E-04
4 0.17% 16 3.54E-06 12 5.89% 549 1.22E-04 20 4.30% 401 8.93E-05
5 0.46% 43 9.55E-06 13 6.17% 575 1.28E-04 21 3.25% 303 6.75E-05
6 0.85% 79 1.76E-05 14 6.05% 564 1.26E-04 22 3.31% 309 6.88E-05
7 3.73% 348 7.74E-05 15 7.06% 658 1.46E-04 23 2.48% 232 5.15E-05
8 7.77% 724 1.61E-04 16 7.19% 670 1.49E-04 24 1.87% 175 3.89E-05
Total 9,325
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_SB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 104 2.31E-05 9 7.12% 664 1.47E-04 17 7.43% 693 1.53E-04
2 0.41% 39 8.51E-06 10 4.37% 408 9.01E-05 18 8.24% 768 1.70E-04
3 0.37% 35 7.72E-06 11 4.65% 434 9.58E-05 19 5.72% 533 1.18E-04
4 0.17% 16 3.51E-06 12 5.89% 549 1.21E-04 20 4.30% 401 8.86E-05
5 0.46% 43 9.48E-06 13 6.17% 575 1.27E-04 21 3.25% 303 6.70E-05
6 0.85% 79 1.75E-05 14 6.05% 564 1.25E-04 22 3.31% 309 6.83E-05
7 3.73% 348 7.69E-05 15 7.06% 658 1.45E-04 23 2.48% 232 5.12E-05
8 7.77% 724 1.60E-04 16 7.19% 670 1.48E-04 24 1.87% 175 3.86E-05
Total 9,325
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Dubuque Ave
TOG Exhaust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Exhaust Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
TEXH_NB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325
TEXH_SB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325
Total 18,650
Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 30
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03611
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_NB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 104 5.03E-04 9 7.12% 664 3.20E-03 17 7.43% 693 3.34E-03
2 0.41% 39 1.86E-04 10 4.37% 408 1.97E-03 18 8.24% 768 3.70E-03
3 0.37% 35 1.68E-04 11 4.65% 434 2.09E-03 19 5.72% 533 2.57E-03
4 0.17% 16 7.66E-05 12 5.89% 549 2.64E-03 20 4.30% 401 1.93E-03
5 0.46% 43 2.07E-04 13 6.17% 575 2.77E-03 21 3.25% 303 1.46E-03
6 0.85% 79 3.81E-04 14 6.05% 564 2.72E-03 22 3.31% 309 1.49E-03
7 3.73% 348 1.68E-03 15 7.06% 658 3.17E-03 23 2.48% 232 1.12E-03
8 7.77% 724 3.49E-03 16 7.19% 670 3.23E-03 24 1.87% 175 8.42E-04
Total 9,325
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_SB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 104 5.00E-04 9 7.12% 664 3.17E-03 17 7.43% 693 3.32E-03
2 0.41% 39 1.84E-04 10 4.37% 408 1.95E-03 18 8.24% 768 3.67E-03
3 0.37% 35 1.67E-04 11 4.65% 434 2.07E-03 19 5.72% 533 2.55E-03
4 0.17% 16 7.60E-05 12 5.89% 549 2.63E-03 20 4.30% 401 1.92E-03
5 0.46% 43 2.05E-04 13 6.17% 575 2.75E-03 21 3.25% 303 1.45E-03
6 0.85% 79 3.78E-04 14 6.05% 564 2.70E-03 22 3.31% 309 1.48E-03
7 3.73% 348 1.66E-03 15 7.06% 658 3.15E-03 23 2.48% 232 1.11E-03
8 7.77% 724 3.47E-03 16 7.19% 670 3.21E-03 24 1.87% 175 8.36E-04
Total 9,325
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Dubuque Ave
TOG Evaporative Emissions Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Evaporative Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
TEVAP_NB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325
TEVAP_SB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325
Total 18,650
Emission Factors - PM2.5 - Evaporative TOG
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 30
Emissions per Vehicle per Hour (g/hour)1.19210
Emissions per Vehicle per Mile (g/VMT) 0.03974
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_NB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 104 5.54E-04 9 7.12% 664 3.52E-03 17 7.43% 693 3.68E-03
2 0.41% 39 2.04E-04 10 4.37% 408 2.16E-03 18 8.24% 768 4.07E-03
3 0.37% 35 1.85E-04 11 4.65% 434 2.30E-03 19 5.72% 533 2.83E-03
4 0.17% 16 8.42E-05 12 5.89% 549 2.91E-03 20 4.30% 401 2.13E-03
5 0.46% 43 2.27E-04 13 6.17% 575 3.05E-03 21 3.25% 303 1.61E-03
6 0.85% 79 4.19E-04 14 6.05% 564 2.99E-03 22 3.31% 309 1.64E-03
7 3.73% 348 1.84E-03 15 7.06% 658 3.49E-03 23 2.48% 232 1.23E-03
8 7.77% 724 3.84E-03 16 7.19% 670 3.56E-03 24 1.87% 175 9.27E-04
Total 9,325
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_SB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 104 5.50E-04 9 7.12% 664 3.49E-03 17 7.43% 693 3.65E-03
2 0.41% 39 2.03E-04 10 4.37% 408 2.15E-03 18 8.24% 768 4.04E-03
3 0.37% 35 1.84E-04 11 4.65% 434 2.28E-03 19 5.72% 533 2.81E-03
4 0.17% 16 8.36E-05 12 5.89% 549 2.89E-03 20 4.30% 401 2.11E-03
5 0.46% 43 2.26E-04 13 6.17% 575 3.03E-03 21 3.25% 303 1.60E-03
6 0.85% 79 4.16E-04 14 6.05% 564 2.97E-03 22 3.31% 309 1.63E-03
7 3.73% 348 1.83E-03 15 7.06% 658 3.46E-03 23 2.48% 232 1.22E-03
8 7.77% 724 3.81E-03 16 7.19% 670 3.53E-03 24 1.87% 175 9.20E-04
Total 9,325
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Cumulative Operation - Dubuque Ave
Fugitive Road PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and Fugitive Road PM2.5 Emissions
Year = 2023
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
FUG_NB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325
FUG_SB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325
Total 18,650
Emission Factors - Fugitive PM2.5
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 30
Tire Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00205
Brake Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01681
Road Dust - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01487
otal Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03373
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_NB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 104 4.70E-04 9 7.12% 664 2.99E-03 17 7.43% 693 3.12E-03
2 0.41% 39 1.73E-04 10 4.37% 408 1.84E-03 18 8.24% 768 3.46E-03
3 0.37% 35 1.57E-04 11 4.65% 434 1.95E-03 19 5.72% 533 2.40E-03
4 0.17% 16 7.15E-05 12 5.89% 549 2.47E-03 20 4.30% 401 1.81E-03
5 0.46% 43 1.93E-04 13 6.17% 575 2.59E-03 21 3.25% 303 1.36E-03
6 0.85% 79 3.56E-04 14 6.05% 564 2.54E-03 22 3.31% 309 1.39E-03
7 3.73% 348 1.57E-03 15 7.06% 658 2.96E-03 23 2.48% 232 1.04E-03
8 7.77% 724 3.26E-03 16 7.19% 670 3.02E-03 24 1.87% 175 7.86E-04
Total 9,325
2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_SB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 104 4.67E-04 9 7.12% 664 2.97E-03 17 7.43% 693 3.10E-03
2 0.41% 39 1.72E-04 10 4.37% 408 1.82E-03 18 8.24% 768 3.43E-03
3 0.37% 35 1.56E-04 11 4.65% 434 1.94E-03 19 5.72% 533 2.38E-03
4 0.17% 16 7.10E-05 12 5.89% 549 2.45E-03 20 4.30% 401 1.79E-03
5 0.46% 43 1.92E-04 13 6.17% 575 2.57E-03 21 3.25% 303 1.35E-03
6 0.85% 79 3.53E-04 14 6.05% 564 2.52E-03 22 3.31% 309 1.38E-03
7 3.73% 348 1.55E-03 15 7.06% 658 2.94E-03 23 2.48% 232 1.03E-03
8 7.77% 724 3.24E-03 16 7.19% 670 3.00E-03 24 1.87% 175 7.81E-04
Total 9,325
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Highway 101 Traffic - TACs & PM2.5
AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations
at Construction Residential MEI Receptors (1 Location - 1 meter receptor height)
Emission Year 2023
Receptor Information Construction School MEI receptor
Number of Receptors 1
Receptor Height 1 Meter
Receptor Distances At Construction School MEI location
Meteorological Conditions
BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport M 2013-2017
Land Use Classification Urban
Wind Speed Variable
Wind Direction Variable
Construction School MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations
Meteorological
Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG
2013-2017 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789
Construction School MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations
Meteorological
Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5
2013-2017 0.1201 0.1133 0.0068
Concentration (μg/m3)*
PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3)*
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Airport Blvd Traffic - TACs & PM2.5
AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations
at Construction Residential MEI Receptors (1 Location - 1 meter receptor height)
Emission Year 2023
Receptor Information Construction School MEI receptor
Number of Receptors 1
Receptor Height 1 Meter
Receptor Distances At Construction School MEI location
Meteorological Conditions
BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport M 2013-2017
Land Use Classification Urban
Wind Speed Variable
Wind Direction Variable
Construction School MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations
Meteorological
Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG
2013-2017 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138
Construction School MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations
Meteorological
Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5
2013-2017 0.0143 0.0137 0.0006
Concentration (μg/m3)*
PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3)*
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Dubuque Avenue Traffic - TACs & PM2.5
AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations
at Construction Residential MEI Receptors (1 Location - 1 meter receptor height)
Emission Year 2023
Receptor Information Construction School MEI receptor
Number of Receptors 1
Receptor Height 1 Meter
Receptor Distances At Construction School MEI location
Meteorological Conditions
BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport M 2013-2017
Land Use Classification Urban
Wind Speed Variable
Wind Direction Variable
Construction School MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations
Meteorological
Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG
2013-2017 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173
Construction School MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations
Meteorological
Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5
2013-2017 0.0154 0.0147 0.0007
Concentration (μg/m3)*
PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3)*
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Highway 101 Traffic Cancer Risk
Impacts at Construction School MEI - 1 meter receptor height
30 Year Residential Exposure
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Cancer Potency Factors (mg/kg-day)-1
CPF
1.10E+00
Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6.28E-03
Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3.70E-04
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
Exposure
Exposure Duration DPM
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG DPM
Year (years) Age
0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.030 0.012 0.0004 0.04
Hazard
Index
Fugitive
PM2.5
Total
PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.360 0.141 0.0044 0.50 0.0004 0.11 0.12
2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.360 0.141 0.0044 0.50
3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08
4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08
5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08
6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08
7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08
8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08
9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08
10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08
11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08
12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08
13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08
14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08
15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08
16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08
17 1 16-17 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01
18 1 17-18 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01
19 1 18-19 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01
20 1 19-20 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01
21 1 20-21 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01
22 1 21-22 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01
23 1 22-23 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01
24 1 23-24 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01
25 1 24-25 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01
26 1 25-26 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01
27 1 26-27 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01
28 1 27-28 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01
29 1 28-29 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01
30 1 29-30 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01
Total Increased Cancer Risk 1.63 0.637 0.020 2.29
* Third trimester of pregnancy
2027
2028
2029
2030
TAC
DPM
Maximum - Exposure Information
2026
Maximum
2023
2023
2024
2025
TOTAL
Year
Age
Sensitivity
Factor
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG
Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million)
2031
2044
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2032
2051
2052
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Airport Blvd Traffic Cancer Risk
Impacts at Construction School MEI - 1 meter receptor height
30 Year Residential Exposure
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Cancer Potency Factors (mg/kg-day)-1
CPF
1.10E+00
Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6.28E-03
Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3.70E-04
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
Exposure
Exposure Duration DPM
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG DPM
Year (years) Age
0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.001 0.001 0.0001 0.00
Hazard
Index
Fugitive
PM2.5
Total
PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.018 0.014 0.0008 0.03 0.0000 0.01 0.01
2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.018 0.014 0.0008 0.03
3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
17 1 16-17 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
18 1 17-18 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
19 1 18-19 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
20 1 19-20 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
21 1 20-21 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
22 1 21-22 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
23 1 22-23 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
24 1 23-24 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
25 1 24-25 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
26 1 25-26 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
27 1 26-27 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
28 1 27-28 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
29 1 28-29 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
30 1 29-30 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.08 0.062 0.003 0.15
* Third trimester of pregnancy
2051
2052
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2031
2044
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2032
Maximum
2023
2023
2024
2025
TOTAL
Year
Age
Sensitivity
Factor
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG
Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million)
2027
2028
2029
2030
TAC
DPM
Maximum - Exposure Information
2026
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Dubuque Avenue Traffic Cancer Risk
Impacts at Construction School MEI - 1 meter receptor height
30 Year Residential Exposure
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Cancer Potency Factors (mg/kg-day)-1
CPF
1.10E+00
Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6.28E-03
Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3.70E-04
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
Exposure
Exposure Duration DPM
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG DPM
Year (years) Age
0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.002 0.001 0.0001 0.00
Hazard
Index
Fugitive
PM2.5
Total
PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.020 0.015 0.0010 0.04 0.0000 0.01 0.02
2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.020 0.015 0.0010 0.04
3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01
4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01
5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01
6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01
7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01
8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01
9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01
10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01
11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01
12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01
13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01
14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01
15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01
16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01
17 1 16-17 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
18 1 17-18 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
19 1 18-19 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
20 1 19-20 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
21 1 20-21 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
22 1 21-22 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
23 1 22-23 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
24 1 23-24 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
25 1 24-25 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
26 1 25-26 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
27 1 26-27 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
28 1 27-28 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
29 1 28-29 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
30 1 29-30 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.09 0.067 0.004 0.16
* Third trimester of pregnancy
TAC
DPM
Maximum - Exposure Information Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million)
2034
Maximum
2025
2025
2026
2027
2028
TOTAL
Year
Age
Sensitivity
Factor
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2046
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2053
2054
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Project Trips - Dubuque Ave
DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions
Year = 2028
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
DPM_NB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 31.7 3.4 30 2,818
DPM_SB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 31.7 3.4 30 2,818
Total 5,635
Emission Factors
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 30
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00022
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emissions - DPM_NB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 4.02% 113 3.25E-06 9 6.62% 187 5.35E-06 17 6.46% 182 5.22E-06
2 3.38% 95 2.73E-06 10 8.04% 226 6.50E-06 18 3.89% 110 3.14E-06
3 2.57% 72 2.08E-06 11 6.11% 172 4.94E-06 19 2.28% 64 1.85E-06
4 0.96% 27 7.80E-07 12 7.59% 214 6.13E-06 20 0.96% 27 7.80E-07
5 0.96% 27 7.80E-07 13 7.11% 200 5.74E-06 21 2.89% 82 2.34E-06
6 2.25% 63 1.82E-06 14 6.62% 187 5.35E-06 22 4.82% 136 3.90E-06
7 4.50% 127 3.64E-06 15 6.14% 173 4.96E-06 23 3.54% 100 2.86E-06
8 3.25% 92 2.63E-06 16 4.21% 119 3.40E-06 24 0.80% 23 6.50E-07
Total 2,818
2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - DPM_SB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 4.02% 113 3.23E-06 9 6.62% 187 5.32E-06 17 6.46% 182 5.19E-06
2 3.38% 95 2.71E-06 10 8.04% 226 6.45E-06 18 3.89% 110 3.12E-06
3 2.57% 72 2.06E-06 11 6.11% 172 4.90E-06 19 2.28% 64 1.83E-06
4 0.96% 27 7.74E-07 12 7.59% 214 6.09E-06 20 0.96% 27 7.74E-07
5 0.96% 27 7.74E-07 13 7.11% 200 5.70E-06 21 2.89% 82 2.32E-06
6 2.25% 63 1.81E-06 14 6.62% 187 5.32E-06 22 4.82% 136 3.87E-06
7 4.50% 127 3.61E-06 15 6.14% 173 4.93E-06 23 3.54% 100 2.84E-06
8 3.25% 92 2.61E-06 16 4.21% 119 3.38E-06 24 0.80% 23 6.45E-07
Total 2,818
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Project Trips - Dubuque Ave
PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions
Year = 2028
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
PM2.5_NB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818
PM2.5_SB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818
Total 5,635
Emission Factors - PM2.5
Speed Category 1 234
Travel Speed (mph) 30
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.001299
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_NB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 31 5.46E-06 9 7.12% 201 3.48E-05 17 7.43% 209 3.63E-05
2 0.41% 12 2.02E-06 10 4.37% 123 2.14E-05 18 8.23% 232 4.02E-05
3 0.37% 10 1.82E-06 11 4.65% 131 2.27E-05 19 5.74% 162 2.80E-05
4 0.18% 5 8.70E-07 12 5.89% 166 2.88E-05 20 4.31% 121 2.10E-05
5 0.46% 13 2.24E-06 13 6.16% 174 3.01E-05 21 3.25% 92 1.59E-05
6 0.85% 24 4.13E-06 14 6.05% 170 2.95E-05 22 3.31% 93 1.62E-05
7 3.73% 105 1.82E-05 15 7.06% 199 3.45E-05 23 2.48% 70 1.21E-05
8 7.76% 219 3.79E-05 16 7.19% 202 3.51E-05 24 1.88% 53 9.16E-06
Total 2,818
2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_SB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 31 5.42E-06 9 7.12% 201 3.45E-05 17 7.43% 209 3.60E-05
2 0.41% 12 2.00E-06 10 4.37% 123 2.12E-05 18 8.23% 232 3.99E-05
3 0.37% 10 1.81E-06 11 4.65% 131 2.25E-05 19 5.74% 162 2.78E-05
4 0.18% 5 8.64E-07 12 5.89% 166 2.86E-05 20 4.31% 121 2.09E-05
5 0.46% 13 2.22E-06 13 6.16% 174 2.99E-05 21 3.25% 92 1.58E-05
6 0.85% 24 4.10E-06 14 6.05% 170 2.93E-05 22 3.31% 93 1.61E-05
7 3.73% 105 1.81E-05 15 7.06% 199 3.42E-05 23 2.48% 70 1.20E-05
8 7.76% 219 3.76E-05 16 7.19% 202 3.48E-05 24 1.88% 53 9.09E-06
Total 2,818
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Project Trips - Dubuque Ave
TOG Exhaust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Exhaust Emissions
Year = 2028
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
TEXH_NB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818
TEXH_SB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818
Total 5,635
Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 30
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03916
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_NB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 31 1.65E-04 9 7.12% 201 1.05E-03 17 7.43% 209 1.09E-03
2 0.41% 12 6.08E-05 10 4.37% 123 6.44E-04 18 8.23% 232 1.21E-03
3 0.37% 10 5.49E-05 11 4.65% 131 6.84E-04 19 5.74% 162 8.44E-04
4 0.18% 5 2.62E-05 12 5.89% 166 8.68E-04 20 4.31% 121 6.34E-04
5 0.46% 13 6.74E-05 13 6.16% 174 9.07E-04 21 3.25% 92 4.79E-04
6 0.85% 24 1.25E-04 14 6.05% 170 8.90E-04 22 3.31% 93 4.88E-04
7 3.73% 105 5.49E-04 15 7.06% 199 1.04E-03 23 2.48% 70 3.66E-04
8 7.76% 219 1.14E-03 16 7.19% 202 1.06E-03 24 1.88% 53 2.76E-04
Total 2,818
2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_SB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 31 1.63E-04 9 7.12% 201 1.04E-03 17 7.43% 209 1.09E-03
2 0.41% 12 6.04E-05 10 4.37% 123 6.39E-04 18 8.23% 232 1.20E-03
3 0.37% 10 5.45E-05 11 4.65% 131 6.80E-04 19 5.74% 162 8.38E-04
4 0.18% 5 2.60E-05 12 5.89% 166 8.61E-04 20 4.31% 121 6.29E-04
5 0.46% 13 6.69E-05 13 6.16% 174 9.01E-04 21 3.25% 92 4.75E-04
6 0.85% 24 1.24E-04 14 6.05% 170 8.84E-04 22 3.31% 93 4.84E-04
7 3.73% 105 5.45E-04 15 7.06% 199 1.03E-03 23 2.48% 70 3.63E-04
8 7.76% 219 1.13E-03 16 7.19% 202 1.05E-03 24 1.88% 53 2.74E-04
Total 2,818
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Project Trips - Dubuque Ave
TOG Evaporative Emissions Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Evaporative Emissions
Year = 2028
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
TEVAP_NB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818
TEVAP_SB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818
Total 5,635
Emission Factors - PM2.5 - Evaporative TOG
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 30
Emissions per Vehicle per Hour (g/hour)1.01325
Emissions per Vehicle per Mile (g/VMT) 0.03377
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_NB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 31 1.42E-04 9 7.12% 201 9.04E-04 17 7.43% 209 9.44E-04
2 0.41% 12 5.25E-05 10 4.37% 123 5.55E-04 18 8.23% 232 1.05E-03
3 0.37% 10 4.73E-05 11 4.65% 131 5.90E-04 19 5.74% 162 7.28E-04
4 0.18% 5 2.26E-05 12 5.89% 166 7.48E-04 20 4.31% 121 5.47E-04
5 0.46% 13 5.81E-05 13 6.16% 174 7.83E-04 21 3.25% 92 4.13E-04
6 0.85% 24 1.07E-04 14 6.05% 170 7.68E-04 22 3.31% 93 4.21E-04
7 3.73% 105 4.74E-04 15 7.06% 199 8.96E-04 23 2.48% 70 3.15E-04
8 7.76% 219 9.86E-04 16 7.19% 202 9.12E-04 24 1.88% 53 2.38E-04
Total 2,818
2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_SB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 31 1.41E-04 9 7.12% 201 8.98E-04 17 7.43% 209 9.37E-04
2 0.41% 12 5.21E-05 10 4.37% 123 5.51E-04 18 8.23% 232 1.04E-03
3 0.37% 10 4.70E-05 11 4.65% 131 5.86E-04 19 5.74% 162 7.23E-04
4 0.18% 5 2.25E-05 12 5.89% 166 7.43E-04 20 4.31% 121 5.43E-04
5 0.46% 13 5.77E-05 13 6.16% 174 7.77E-04 21 3.25% 92 4.10E-04
6 0.85% 24 1.07E-04 14 6.05% 170 7.62E-04 22 3.31% 93 4.18E-04
7 3.73% 105 4.70E-04 15 7.06% 199 8.89E-04 23 2.48% 70 3.13E-04
8 7.76% 219 9.79E-04 16 7.19% 202 9.06E-04 24 1.88% 53 2.36E-04
Total 2,818
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential
Project Trips - Dubuque Ave
Fugitive Road PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and Fugitive Road PM2.5 Emissions
Year = 2028
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Length
(mi)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Release
Height
( m)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
FUG_NB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818
FUG_SB_DUB
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818
Total 5,635
Emission Factors - Fugitive PM2.5
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 30
Tire Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00204
Brake Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01682
Road Dust - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01506
otal Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03393
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_NB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 31 1.43E-04 9 7.12% 201 9.08E-04 17 7.43% 209 9.48E-04
2 0.41% 12 5.27E-05 10 4.37% 123 5.58E-04 18 8.23% 232 1.05E-03
3 0.37% 10 4.75E-05 11 4.65% 131 5.93E-04 19 5.74% 162 7.32E-04
4 0.18% 5 2.27E-05 12 5.89% 166 7.52E-04 20 4.31% 121 5.49E-04
5 0.46% 13 5.84E-05 13 6.16% 174 7.86E-04 21 3.25% 92 4.15E-04
6 0.85% 24 1.08E-04 14 6.05% 170 7.71E-04 22 3.31% 93 4.23E-04
7 3.73% 105 4.76E-04 15 7.06% 199 9.00E-04 23 2.48% 70 3.17E-04
8 7.76% 219 9.90E-04 16 7.19% 202 9.16E-04 24 1.88% 53 2.39E-04
Total 2,818
2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_SB_DUB
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 31 1.42E-04 9 7.12% 201 9.02E-04 17 7.43% 209 9.41E-04
2 0.41% 12 5.23E-05 10 4.37% 123 5.54E-04 18 8.23% 232 1.04E-03
3 0.37% 10 4.72E-05 11 4.65% 131 5.89E-04 19 5.74% 162 7.26E-04
4 0.18% 5 2.26E-05 12 5.89% 166 7.46E-04 20 4.31% 121 5.45E-04
5 0.46% 13 5.80E-05 13 6.16% 174 7.81E-04 21 3.25% 92 4.12E-04
6 0.85% 24 1.07E-04 14 6.05% 170 7.66E-04 22 3.31% 93 4.20E-04
7 3.73% 105 4.72E-04 15 7.06% 199 8.93E-04 23 2.48% 70 3.14E-04
8 7.76% 219 9.83E-04 16 7.19% 202 9.10E-04 24 1.88% 53 2.37E-04
Total 2,818
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Dubuque Avenue Traffic - TACs & PM2.5 - Project Trips
AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations
at Construction Residential MEI Receptors (1 Location - 1 meter receptor height)
Emiss ion Year 2023
Receptor Information Construction School MEI receptor
Number of Receptors 1
Receptor Height 1.5 Meters
Receptor Distances At School MEI location
Meteorological Conditions
BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport M 2013-2017
Land Use Classification Urban
Wind Speed Variable
Wind Direction Variable
Construction School MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations
Meteorological
Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG
2013-2017 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044
Construction School MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations
Meteorological
Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5
2013-2017 0.0046 0.0045 0.0002
Concentration (μg/m3)*
PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3)*
800 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, CA - Dubuque Avenue Traffic Cancer Risk - Project Trips
Impacts at Construction School MEI - 1 meter receptor height
30 Year Residential Exposure
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Cancer Potency Factors (mg/kg-day)-1
CPF
1.10E+00
Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6.28E-03
Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3.70E-04
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
Exposure
Exposure Duration DPM
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG DPM
Year (years) Age
0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
Hazard
Index
Fugitive
PM2.5
Total
PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.005 0.005 0.0002 0.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00
2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.005 0.005 0.0002 0.01
3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00
4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00
6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00
7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00
8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00
9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00
10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00
11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00
12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00
13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00
14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00
15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00
16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00
17 1 16-17 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
18 1 17-18 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
19 1 18-19 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
20 1 19-20 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
21 1 20-21 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
22 1 21-22 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
23 1 22-23 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
24 1 23-24 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
25 1 24-25 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
26 1 25-26 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
27 1 26-27 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
28 1 27-28 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
29 1 28-29 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
30 1 29-30 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.02 0.022 0.001 0.05
* Third trimester of pregnancy
2029
2030
2031
2032
TAC
DPM
Maximum - Exposure Information
2028
Maximum
2025
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
Year
Age
Sensitivity
Factor
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG
Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million)
2033
2046
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2034
2053
2054
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
Rail Line Emissions
800 Dubuque Ave - South San Francisco
DPM Modeling - Rail Line Information and DPM Emission Rates
Caltrain Electrification and Diesel-Powered Freight
DPM Emission Rates
Year Description
Modeled
No. Lines
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Link
Length
(ft)
Link
Length
(miles)
Link
Length
(m)
Release
Height
(m)
No.
Trains
per Day
Train
Travel
Speed
(mph)
Average Daily
Emission Rate
(g/mi/day)
Average Daily
Emission Rate
(g/day)
Link
Emission
Rate
(g/s)
Link
Emission
Rate
(lb/hr)
2023-2024 Caltrain 1 15 4.6 2,422 0.46 738 5.0 83 40 186.3 85.5 9.89E-04 7.85E-03
Freight Trains 1 15 4.6 2,422 0.46 738 5.0 4 40 16.7 7.7 8.88E-05 7.05E-04
Total - - - 2,935 0.56 894 - 87 - 203.0 93.1 1.08E-03 8.56E-03
2025-2027 Caltrain 1 15 4.6 2,422 0.46 738 5.0 18 40 33.2 15.2 1.76E-04 1.40E-03
Freight Trains 1 15 4.6 2,422 0.46 738 5.0 4 40 13.9 6.4 7.40E-05 5.87E-04
Total - - - 2,935 0.56 894 - 22 - 47.2 21.6 2.50E-04 1.99E-03
Notes:Emission based on Emission Factors for Locomotives, USEPA 2009 (EPA-420-F-09-025)
Average emissions calculated for periods 2023-2024 and 2025-2027.
Fuel correction factors from Offroad Modeling Change Technical memo, Changes to the Locomotive Inventory, CARB July 2006.
PM2.5 calculated as 92% of PM emissions (CARB CEIDERS PM2.5 fractions)
Passenger trains assumed to operate for
Freight trains assumed to operate for
Caltrain
Passenger Trains
Passenger trains - weekday =
Passenger trains - weekend =
Passenger trains - Sat only =
Total Trains =
Annual average daily trains =
Locomotive horsepower =
Locomotives per train =
Engine load =
Freight
Freight trains per day = 4 7 days/week
Locomotive horsepower = 2300
Locomotives per train = 2
Total horsepower = 4600
Locomotive engine load = 0.5
DPM Locomotive Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)
Train Type
2023-
2024
2025-
2027
Passenger 0.077 0.059
Freight 0.087 0.072
2025+ emissions are average for 2025-2054.
PM2.5 to PM ratio = 1
CARB Fuel Adj Factor
2010 2011+
Passenger 0.717 0.709
Freight 0.851 0.840
Diesel Trains
0.5
24
4
0
28
18
3467
1
0.5
136
83
3285
1
Diesel Trains
104
32
0
24 hours per day
24 hours per day
2023-2024
(Existing)
2025-2027 (with
Electrification)
Rail Line Impacts at Project Construction MEI
800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Rail Impacts at Construction MEI Receptor
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations For Rail Operation at MEI
Impacts at Gateway Child Development Center YMCA - 1 meter - Infant Exposure
Student Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x SCAF x 8-Hr BR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
SCAF = School Child Adjustment Factor (unitless) for source operation
and exposures different than 8 hours/day
= (24/SHR) x (7days/SDay) x (SCHR/8 hrs)
SHR = Hours/day of emission source operation
SDay = Number of days per week of source operation
SCHR = School operation hours while emission source in operation
8-Hr BR = Eight-hour breathing rate (L/kg body weight-per 8 hrs)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant Child
Age --> 0 - <2 2 - <16
Parameter
ASF = 10 3
DPM CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
8-Hr BR* = 1200 520
SCHR = 9 9
SHR = 24 24
SDay = 7 7
A = 1 1
EF = 250 250
AT = 70 70
SCAF = 1.13 1.13
* 95th percentile 8-hr breathing rates for moderate intensity activities
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Child Development Center Receptor
Child - Exposure Information Child
Exposure Age* Cancer Maximum
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Hazard Total
Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Index PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 2023 0.0148 10 2.15 0.0030 0.015
2 1 1 - 2 2024 0.0148 10 2.15 0.0030 0.015
3 1 2 - 3 2025 0.0034 3 0.06 0.0007 0.003
4 1 3 - 4 2026 0.0034 3 0.06 0.0007 0.003
5 1 4 - 5 2027 0.0034 3 0.06 0.0007 0.003
Total Increased Cancer Risk 4.50
* Children assumed to be 3 months of age with 5 years of exposure to construction emissions
Date of Request 6/28/2022Contact NameZachary PalmAffiliationIllingworth & Rodkin, Inc.Phone707‐794‐0400 x117Emailzpalm@illingworthrodkin.comProject Name800 DubuqueAddress800 Dubuque AveCitySouth San FranciscoCountySan MateoType (residential, commercial, mixed use, industrial, etc.)Office/R&DProject Size (# of units or building square feet)900ksqftTable A: Requester Contact InformationComments:Risk & Hazard Stationary Source Inquiry FormThis form is required when users request stationary source data from BAAQMDThis form is to be used with the BAAQMD's Google Earth stationary source screening tables. Click here forguidance on coductingrisk & hazard screening, including roadways & freeways, refer to the District's Risk & Hazard Analysis flow chart. Click here for District's Recommended Methodsfor Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards document.For Air District assistance, the following steps must be completed:1. Complete all the contact and project information requested in . Incomplete forms will not be processed. Please include a project site map.2. Download and install the free program Google Earth, http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/, and then download the county specific Google Earth stationary source application files from the District's website, http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning‐and‐Research/CEQA‐GUIDELINES/Tools‐and‐Methodology.aspx. The small points on the map represent stationary sources permitted by the District (Map A on right). These permitted sources include diesel back‐up generators, gas stations, dry cleaners, boilers, printers, auto spray booths, etc. Click on a point to view the source's Information Table, including the name, location, and preliminary estimated cancer risk, hazard index, and PM2.5 concentration.3. Find the project site in Google Earth by inputting the site's address in the Google Earth search box.4. Identify stationary sources within at least a 1000ft radius of project site. Verify that the location of the source on themap matches with the source's address in the Information Table, by using the Google Earth address search box to confirm the source's address location. Please report any mapping errors to the District.5. List the stationary source information in blue section only. 6. Note that a small percentage of the stationary sources have Health Risk Screening Assessment (HRSA) data INSTEAD of screening level data. These sources will be noted by an asterisk next to the Plant Name (Map B on right). If HRSA values are presented, these values have already been modeled and cannot be adjusted further.7. Email this completed form to District staff. District staff will provide the most recent risk, hazard, and PM2.5 data that are available for the source(s). If this information or data are not available, source emissions data will be provided. Staff will respond to inquiries within three weeks. Note that a public records request received for the same stationary source information will cancel the processing of your SSIF request.Submit forms, maps, and questions to Areana Flores at 415‐749‐4616, or aflores@baaqmd.govTable A: Requester Contact Information Table B Table A
Construction MEIsDistance from Receptor (feet) or MEI1Plant No. Facility Name Address Cancer Risk2Hazard Risk2PM2.52Source No.3Type of Source4Fuel Code5Status/CommentsDistance Adjustment MultiplierAdjusted Cancer Risk EstimateAdjusted Hazard RiskAdjusted PM2.5200 16024 Genentech, Inc 611 Gateway Boulevard 1.95 0.00 0.00 Generator 2020 Dataset0.41 0.80 0.002 0.00150 14010 Boston Properties 601 Gateway Boulevard 6.07 0.00 0.01 Generator 2020 Dataset0.58 3.52 0.001 0.00950 20236Biotech Gateway ‐ HCP c/o CBRE 2 Corporate Drive 1.66 0.00 0.00 Generator 2020 Dataset0.04 0.07 0.000 0.00850 19179 MacroGenics West,Inc One Corporate Drive 39.61 0.02 0.05 Generator 2020 Dataset 0.06 2.38 0.001 0.00530 17584Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc 681 GATEWAY BLVD 17.49 0.01 0.02 Generator 2020 Dataset0.10 1.75 0.001 0.001000+ 18401 Lowe's HIW Inc 720 Dubuque Avenue 9.47 0.00 0.01 Generator2020 Dataset 0.04 0.38 0.000 0.001000+ 23311 Health Plan of San Mateo 801 Gateway Boulevard 1.49 0.000.00 Generator 2020 Dataset0.04 0.06 0.000 0.00320 24794 611 Gateway Center LP 611 Gateway Boulevard 2.44 0.01 0.43 No Data 2020 Dataset0.51 1.23 0.003 0.22630 24795 601 & 651 Gateway Center LP 651 Gateway Boulevard 20.25 0.03 0.33 No Data 2020 Dataset0.27 5.49 0.009 0.091000+ 111170_1 Airport Boulevard Shell 899 Airport Blvd 19.36 0.09 0.00Gas Dispensing Facility 2020 Dataset0.02 0.29 0.001 0.00Footnotes:1. Maximally exposed individual c. BAAQMD Reg 11 Rule 16 required that all co‐residential (sharing a wall, floor, ceiling or is in the same building as a residential unit) dry cleaners cease use of perc on July 1, 2010. Date last updated: 03/13/2018g. This spray booth is considered to be insignificant.4. Permitted sources include diesel back‐up generators, gas stations, dry cleaners, boilers, printers, auto spray booths, etc.11. Further information about common sources:a. Sources that only include diesel internal combustion engines can be adjusted using the BAAQMD's Diesel Multiplier worksheet. b. The risk from natural gas boilers used for space heating when <25 MM BTU/hr would have an estimated cancer risk of one in a million or less, and a chronic hazard index of Therefore, there is no cancer risk, hazard or PM2.5 concentrations from co‐residential dry cleaning businesses in the BAAQMD.d. Non co‐residential dry cleaners must phase out use of perc by Jan. 1, 2023. Therefore, the risk from these dry cleaners does not need to be factored in over a 70‐year period, but instead should reflect the number of years perc use will continue after the project's residents or other sensitive receptors (such as students, patients, etc) take occupancy.e. Gas stations can be adjusted using BAAQMD's Gas Station Distance Mulitplier worksheet.6. If a Health Risk Screening Assessment (HRSA) was completed for the source, the application number will be listed here.7. The date that the HRSA was completed.8. Engineer who completed the HRSA. For District purposes only.9. All HRSA completed before 1/5/2010 need to be multiplied by an age sensitivity factor of 1.7.10. The HRSA "Chronic Health" number represents the Hazard Index.5. Fuel codes: 98 = diesel, 189 = Natural Gas.2. These Cancer Risk, Hazard Index, and PM2.5 columns represent the values in the Google Earth Plant Information Table.3. Each plant may have multiple permits and sources.f. Unless otherwise noted, exempt sources are considered insignificant. See BAAQMD Reg 2 Rule 1 for a list of exempt sources.Table B: Google Earth data
CULTURAL RECORDS SEARCH, NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE
COMMISSION RESPONSE
ATTACHMENT B
to the
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 26, 2022 NWIC File No.: 22-0094
Jenna Sunderlin
Lamphier-Gregory, Inc.
4100 Redwood Road, STE 20A - #601
Oakland, CA 94619
Re: Record search results for the proposed 800 Dubuque Avenue Project in the City of South
San Francisco
Dear Jenna Sunderlin:
Per your request received by our office on the 18th of July, 2022, a rapid response records
search was conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest
Information Center (NWIC) base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports,
historic-period maps, and literature for Alameda County. Please note that use of the term
cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or
structures.
The project proposes to demolish all existing improvements and construct approximately
900,000 square feet of office/R&D space in 3 new buildings, including accessory event center,
food/beverage, and fitness center uses. The project will involve excavation for subsurface
parking across the majority of the site extending to depths of approximately 48 feet below
ground surface.
Review of the information at our office indicates that there has been five cultural resource
studies that cover up to approximately 100% of the 800 Dubuque Avenue project area. One
study by Cartier (1984: S-6529) covered up to 100% of the project area with field survey and
testing. Jurich et al (2011: S-48738) included 100% of the project area within its Research Area
only, and the other three studies were larger adjacent studies that included up to 10% of the
current project area; Hatoff et al 1995: S-17993, Carrico et al 2000: S-26045, and Nelson et al
2002: S-29657. See enclosed Report List.
This 800 Dubuque Avenue project area contains no recorded archaeological resources. The
State Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (OHP BERD),
which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State
Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of
Historic Places, lists no recorded buildings or structures within or adjacent to the proposed 800
2
22‐0094
Dubuque Avenue project area. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show no
recorded buildings or structures within the proposed 800 Dubuque Avenue project area.
At the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers
of the Ramaytush language, which is part of the Costanoan/Ohlone language family (Levy
1978:485). There is one Native American resource within or adjacent to the proposed 800
Dubuque Avenue project area that are referenced in the ethnographic literature [village of
Sipliskin (Levy 1978: 485, Milliken 1995, Nelson 1909)].
Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites,
Native American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found in areas marginal
to San Francisco Bay and inland on ridges, midslope benches, in valleys, near intermittent and
perennial watercourses and near areas populated by oak, buckeye, manzanita, and pine, as
well as near a variety of plant and animal resources. The 800 Dubuque Avenue project area is
located at the western end of Point San Bruno, at a low point between San Bruno Mountain and
the westernmost hill of Point San Bruno. The project area is located approximately 140 meters
from the historic San Francisco bayshore margins and associated marshlands, and adjacent to
a former creek. Aerial maps indicate a fully paved over parcel with buildings. Given the similarity
of these environmental factors and the archaeological and ethnographic sensitivity of the area,
there is a moderately high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the
proposed 800 Dubuque Avenue project area.
Review of historical literature and maps indicated historic-period activity within the 800 Dubuque
Avenue project area. Early San Mateo County maps indicated the project area was located
within the landholdings of the South San Francisco Land & Improvement Co, and adjacent to a
portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad. As there are no buildings indicated on the maps at that
time, it is unclear if the area was developed at that time. With this information in mind, there is a
moderate potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources to be within the
proposed 800 Dubuque Avenue project area.
The 1956 San Francisco South USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle depicts one building
and a railroad spur within the 800 Dubuque Avenue project area. If present, these unrecorded
building and structure meet the Office of Historic Preservation’s minimum age standard that
buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) There is a moderately high potential for Native American archaeological resources
and a moderate potential for historic-period archaeological resources to be within the project
area. Due to the passage of time since the previous study that included approximately 100% of
the project area (Cartier 1984), and the changes in archaeological theory and method since that
time, we recommend a qualified archaeologist conduct further archival and field study for the
entire project area to identify archaeological resources.
Our usual recommendation would include archival research and a field examination.
The proposed project area, however, has been highly developed and is presently covered with
asphalt, buildings, or fill that obscures the visibility of original surface soils, which negates the
feasibility of an adequate surface inspection.
3
22‐0094
Field study may include, but is not limited to, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, or
geoarchaeological analyses as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of
buried archaeological resources. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary
of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org.
2) We recommend the lead agency contact the local Native American tribe(s) regarding
traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of
the project, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/373-3710.
3) If the proposed project area contains buildings or structures that meet the minimum
age requirement, prior to commencement of project activities, it is recommended that this
resource be assessed by a professional familiar with the architecture and history of San Mateo
County. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at
http://www.chrisinfo.org.
4) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only those
sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered comprehensive.
5) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should be
temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering
the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the
situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect
cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points,
mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-
affected rock, or human burials. Historic-period resources include stone or adobe foundations or
walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often
located in old wells or privies.
6) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR 523
historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic Preservation’s
website: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28351
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and
resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available
via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and
local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search
area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact
4
22‐0094
the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal
contacts.
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California
Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to
maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal
agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public.
Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and
application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily
represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the
OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.
Thank you for using our services. Please contact this office if you have any
questions, (707) 588-8455.
Sincerely,
Jillian Guldenbrein
Researcher
5
22‐0094
LITERATURE REVIEWED
In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center
of the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed:
Barrows, Henry D., and Luther A. Ingersoll
2005 Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties of Central California.
Three Rocks Research, Santa Cruz (Digital Reproduction of The Lewis Publishing
Company, Chicago: 1893.)
Bowman, J.N.
1951 Adobe Houses in the San Francisco Bay Region. In Geologic Guidebook of the
San Francisco Bay Counties, Bulletin 154. California Division of Mines, Ferry
Building, San Francisco, CA.
Brabb, Earl E., Fred A. Taylor, and George P. Miller
1982 Geologic, Scenic, and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, California.
Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-1257-B, 1:62,500. Department of the
Interior, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Bromfield, Davenport
1894 Official Map of San Mateo County, California
General Land Office
1858, 1864 Survey Plat for Rancho Buri Buri, Township 3 South/Range 5 West.
Heizer, Robert F., editor
1974 Local History Studies, Vol. 18., “The Costanoan Indians.” California History
Center, DeAnza College, Cupertino, CA.
Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair
1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region - Their Geology and
Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Geological Survey and
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New
York, 1976)
Levy, Richard
1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of
North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Milliken, Randall
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco
Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43, Menlo Park,
CA.
6
22‐0094
Myers, William A. (editor)
1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California.
Prepared by The History and Heritage Committee, San Francisco Section, American
Society of Civil Engineers. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA.
Nelson, N.C.
1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):309-356. Berkeley.
(Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York, 1964)
Nichols, Donald R., and Nancy A. Wright
1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshland, San Francisco Bay, California.
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Map. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological
Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Washington, D.C.
Postel, Mitchell P.
1994 San Mateo, A Centennial History. Scottwall Associates, San Francisco, CA.
San Mateo County Historic Resources Advisory Board
1984 San Mateo County: Its History and Heritage. Second Edition. Division of Planning
and Development Department of Environmental Management.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of
Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation
1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department
of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
State of California Office of Historic Preservation **
2021 Built Environment Resources Directory. Listing by City (through September 14-15,
2021). State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
Woodbridge, Sally B.
1988 California Architecture: Historic American Buildings Survey. Chronicle Books,
San Francisco, CA.
Works Progress Administration
1984 The WPA Guide to California. Reprint by Pantheon Books, New York. (Originally
published as California: A Guide to the Golden State in 1939 by Books, Inc.,
distributed by Hastings House Publishers, New York.)
**Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National
Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California
Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have
undergone Section 106 review.
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0094 800 Dubuque Ave, South SF
S-006529 1984 Subsurface Archaeological Testing of the
Dubuque Packing Plant Site on Dubuque
Avenue in the City of South San Francisco,
County of San Mateo
Archaeological Resource
Management
Robert Cartier
S-017993 1995 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waechter,
Stephen Wee, and
Vance Bente
S-017993a 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix A - Native American
Consultation
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993b 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix B - Looping Segments -
Class 1
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993c 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix C -Monitoring and
Emergency Discovery Plan
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993d 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix D - General Construction
Information
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993e 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix E - Archaeological Site
Records
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
Page 1 of 7 NWIC 7/22/2022 11:51:36 AM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0094 800 Dubuque Ave, South SF
S-017993f 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix F - Historic Features
Evaluation Forms
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993g 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix G - Railroad Crossing
Evaluation Forms
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993h 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix H - Crossing Diagrams and
Plan View Maps
Woodward Clyde
Consultants
S-017993I 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix I - Railroad Depot NRHP
Nomination Forms and Related Records
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993j 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix J - Looping Segment and
Compressor Station Site Records
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993k 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix K - Historic Site Records /
Isolate Forms
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993l 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix L - Photodocumentation
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993m 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix M - Curricula Vitae of Key
Preparers
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
Page 2 of 7 NWIC 7/22/2022 11:51:36 AM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0094 800 Dubuque Ave, South SF
S-026045 2000 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey
and Inventory Report for the Metromedia
Fiberoptic Cable Project, San Francisco Bay
Area and Los Angeles Basin Networks
Mooney & AssociatesRichard Carrico,
Theodore Cooley, and
William Eckhardt
Page 3 of 7 NWIC 7/22/2022 11:51:37 AM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0094 800 Dubuque Ave, South SF
S-029657 2002 Archaeological Inventory for the Caltrain
Electrification Program Alternative in San
Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara
Counties, California
Far Western
Anthropological Research
Group, Inc.
Wendy J. Nelson,
Tammara Norton, Larry
Chiea, and Reinhard
Pribish
OHP PRN -
FTA021021A;
Voided - S-37863;
Voided - S-42672;
Voided - S-43525
S-029657a 2002 Finding of No Adverse Effect, Caltrain
Electrification Program, San Francisco, San
Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California
JRP Historical Consulting
Services
Rand F. Herbert
S-029657b 2002 Historic Property Survey for the Proposed
Caltrain Electrification Program, San
Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara
Counties, California
Parsons; JRP Historical
Consulting Services; Far
Western Anthropological
Research Group, Inc.
S-029657c 2002 FTA021021A; Caltrain Electrification
Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and
Santa Clara Counties
Office of Historic
Preservation
Knox Mellon
S-029657d 2003 Final Finding of Effect Amendment, Caltrain
Electrification Project, San Francisco, San
Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California
JRP Historical Consulting
Services
Meta Bunse
Page 4 of 7 NWIC 7/22/2022 11:51:37 AM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0094 800 Dubuque Ave, South SF
S-029657e 2001 Draft Finding of No Adverse Effect, Caltrain
Electrification Program, San Francisco, San
Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California
JRP Historical Consulting
Services
Rand F. Herbert
S-029657f 2008 Cultural Resources Addendum for the
Caltrain Electrification Program Alternative:
San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara
Counties, California
Far Western
Anthropological Research
Group, Inc.
Sharon A. Waechter,
Jack Meyer, and Laura
Leach-Palm
S-029657g 2008 Addendum Finding of Effect, Caltrain
Electrification Program, San Francisco to San
Jose (MP 0.0 to 52.0); San Francisco, San
Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California
JRP Historical Consulting,
LLC
Meta Bunse
S-029657h 2002 Inventory and Evaluation of Historic
Resources, Caltrain Electrification Program,
San Francisco to Gilroy (MP 0.0 to 77.4)
(Draft)
JRP Historical Consulting
Services
Page 5 of 7 NWIC 7/22/2022 11:51:37 AM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0094 800 Dubuque Ave, South SF
S-048738 2011 California High-Speed Train Project,
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement, San Francisco to San
Jose Section, Archaeological Survey Report,
Technical Report [Draft]
PBS&JDenise Jurich and Amber
Grady
Page 6 of 7 NWIC 7/22/2022 11:51:37 AM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0094 800 Dubuque Ave, South SF
S-048738a 2011 California High-Speed Train Project,
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement, San Francisco to San
Jose Section, Historic Architectural Survey
Report, Technical Report [Draft]
PBS&JAmber Grady and
Richard Brandi
Page 7 of 7 NWIC 7/22/2022 11:51:37 AM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 2
August 25, 2022
Rebecca Auld
Lamphier-Gregory
Via Email to: rauld@lamphier-gregory.com
Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB18), Government Codes
§65352.3 and §65352.4, as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), Public Resources Codes §21080.1,
§21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2, 800 Dubuque Ave Project, San Mateo County
Dear Ms. Auld:
Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within
the boundaries of the above referenced counties or projects.
Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with
California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural
places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.
Public Resources Codes §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 requires public agencies to consult with
California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to tribal cultural
resources as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects.
The law does not preclude local governments and agencies from initiating consultation with
the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC
believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with
the intent of the law.
Best practice for the AB52 process and in accordance with Public Resources Code
§21080.3.1(d), is to do the following:
Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by
a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification
to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally
affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be
accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description
of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a
notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation
pursuant to this section.
The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that lead agencies include in their
notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been
completed on the area of potential affect (APE), such as:
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
SECRETARY Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER Isaac Bojorquez Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki, Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710 nahc@nahc.ca.gov NAHC.ca.gov
Page 2 of 2
1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to
the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided
by the Information Center as part of the records search response;
• Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded
cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously
unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.
All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary
objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public
disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10.
3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through the Native American Heritage
Commission was negative.
4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and
5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.
Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a
negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be
the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.
This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do,
having the information beforehand well help to facilitate the consultation process.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With
your assistance we can assure that our consultation list remains current.
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address:
Cody.Campagne@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Cody Campagne
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
Amah MutsunTribal Band of
Mission San Juan Bautista
Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson
3030 Soda Bay Road
Lakeport, CA, 95453
Phone: (650) 851 - 7489
Fax: (650) 332-1526
amahmutsuntribal@gmail.com
Costanoan
Costanoan Rumsen Carmel
Tribe
Tony Cerda, Chairperson
244 E. 1st Street
Pomona, CA, 91766
Phone: (909) 629 - 6081
Fax: (909) 524-8041
rumsen@aol.com
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA, 95024
Phone: (831) 637 - 4238
ams@indiancanyons.org
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD
Contact
1615 Pearson Court
San Jose, CA, 95122
Phone: (408) 673 - 0626
kanyon@kanyonkonsulting.com
Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area
Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA, 94546
Phone: (408) 464 - 2892
cnijmeh@muwekma.org
Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area
Monica Arellano, Vice
Chairwoman
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA, 94546
Phone: (408) 205 - 9714
marellano@muwekma.org
Costanoan
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
Andrew Galvan,
P.O. Box 3388
Fremont, CA, 94539
Phone: (510) 882 - 0527
Fax: (510) 687-9393
chochenyo@AOL.com
Bay Miwok
Ohlone
Patwin
Plains Miwok
Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom
Valley Band
Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson
1179 Rock Haven Ct.
Salinas, CA, 93906
Phone: (831) 443 - 9702
kwood8934@aol.com
Foothill Yokut
Mono
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of
this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public
Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is applicable only for consultation with Native American tribes under Government Code Sections 65352.3, 65352.4 et seq. and Public Resources Code
Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed 800 Dubuque Ave Project, San Mateo County.
PROJ-2022-
005001
08/25/2022 07:35 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
San Mateo County
8/25/2022
ENERGY CALCULATIONS
ATTACHMENT C
to the
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
To support the Energy Analysis for the following project:800 Dubuque
Construction Equipment/Vehicles
# of
Vehicles
Hrs per
Day
Horse-
power
Load
Factor Days in Phase
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4 120 5,017
Air Compressors 1 8 78 0.48 120 2,113
Concrete Saws 1 8 81 0.73 120 3,338
Excavators 3 8 153 0.38 120 8,858
Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 120 3,509
Plate Compactors 1 8 8 0.43 120 194
Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4 64 0.46 120 831
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 97 0.37 120 6,078
Grading / Excavation
Bore/Drill Rigs 5 8 221 0.5 234 54,713
Cranes 1 8 231 0.29 234 6,634
Excavators 3 8 153 0.38 234 17,273
Graders 1 8 187 0.41 234 7,593
Pumps 2 8 84 0.74 234 13,684
Pumps 1 24 84 0.74 234 20,527
Rollers 1 4 80 0.38 234 1,673
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4 234 9,784
Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4 64 0.46 234 1,620
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37 234 7,901
Building Construction
Aerial Lifts 2 8 63 0.31 563 10,344
Aerial Lifts 24 8 63 0.31 563 124,134
Air Compressors 1 8 78 0.48 563 9,915
Cranes 1 3.3 231 0.29 563 6,584
Cranes 2 8 231 0.29 563 31,922
Forklifts 1 8 89 0.2 563 4,714
Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 563 16,462
Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4 64 0.46 563 3,898
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 4 97 0.37 563 4,752
Welders 12 8 46 0.45 563 65,785
Building - Interior / Architectural Coating
Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48 130 1,717
Paving
Aerial Lifts 1 8 63 0.31 181 1,663
Pavers 1 8 130 0.42 181 4,182
Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36 181 7,280
Plate Compactors 1 8 8 0.43 181 293
Rollers 1 8 80 0.38 181 2,588
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 4 247 0.4 181 3,784
Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4 64 0.46 181 1,253
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37 181 6,112
Total Fuel Used for Construction Equipment/Vehicles 478,724 (diesel)
Compression-Ignition Engine Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) Factors [1] used in the above calculations are
(in gallons per horsepower-hour/BSFC)
0.0588 <100 horsepower
Construction Energy Use
Energy Calculations Page 1 of 5
0.0529 >100 horsepower
Worker Trips
Phase MPG [2]Trips
Trip
Length
(miles)
Total Miles
per Day Days in Phase
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Demolition 24 28 10.8 302.4 120 1,512
Grading Phase 24 43 10.8 464.4 234 4,528
Building Construction 24 557 10.8 6015.6 563 141,116
Paving 24 20 10.8 216 181 1,629
Building Interior 24 111 10.8 1198.8 130 6,494
Total Fuel Used for Construction Worker Trips 155,278 (gasoline)
Construction Energy Use, Continued
Vendor Trips
Phase MPG [2]Trips
Trip
Length
(miles)
Total Miles
per Day Days in Phase
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Demolition 7.4 0 7.3 0 120 0
Grading Phase 7.4 0 7.3 0 234 0
Building Construction 7.4 252 7.3 1839.6 563 139,959
Paving 7.4 0 7.3 0 181 0
Building Interior 7.4 0 7.3 0 130 0
Total Fuel Used for Vendor Trips 139,959 (diesel)
Hauling Trips
Phase MPG [2]
Trips in
Phase
Trip
Length
(miles)
Total Miles
in Phase
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Demolition 7.4 539.4 20 10788 1,458
Grading Phase 7.4 41375 20 827500 111,824
Building Construction 7.4 16800 20 336000 45,405
Paving 7.4 267 20 5340 722
Building Interior 7.4 0 20 0 0
Total Fuel Used for Hauling Trips 159,409 (diesel)
Fuel Use Converted to MMBtu
Source
Fuel
Converted to
Energy Use
Diesel [3]106,895 MMBtu
Gasoline [4]17,047 MMBtu
Total Energy Use from Construction Fuel 123,942 MMBtu
Sum of above
155,278
137,381
109,786
Total Construction
Fuel Use (gallons)
Conversion Factor
Btu/gallon
778,092
Energy Calculations Page 2 of 5
Operational Vehicular Fuel Use
Gross Annual VMT 12,405,925
Fleet Class Fleet Mix
VMT per
Class
Fuel Ecomony
[5]
Fuel Consumption
(gallons)
Light Duty Auto (LDA)0.411757 5108226.5 30.9 165314.77
Light Duty Truck 1 (LDT1)0.041436 514051.91 26.63 19303.49
Light Duty Truck 2 (LDT2)0.297526 3691085.2 24.36 151522.38
Medium Duty Vehicle (MDV)0.170986 2121239.5 20.2 105011.86
Motorcycle (MCY)0.024361 302220.74 37.06 8154.90 Total Gasoline 449,307
Light Heavy Duty 1 (LHD1)0.030624 379919.05 18.23 20840.32 gallons
Light Heavy Duty 2 (LHD2)0.007023 87126.811 16.24 5364.95
Medium Heavy Duty (MHD)0.00842 104457.89 9.43 11077.19
Heavy Heavy Duty (HHD)0.002436 30220.833 6.42 4707.29
Other Bus (OBUS)0.002246 27863.708 8.26 3373.33
Urban Bus (UBUS)0.000679 8423.6231 5.17 1629.33
School Bus (SBUS)0.000402 4987.1819 7.25 687.89
Motorhome (MH )0.002104 26102.066 9.91 2633.91 Total Diesel 50,314
gallons
Note that the above numbers represent gross fuel consumption.
Source
Diesel 50,314 [3]6,912 MMBtu
Gasoline 449,307 [4]49,328 MMBtu
Total Energy Use from Operational Fuel 56,240 MMBtu
Operational Built Environment
Type of Energy Annual Usage Units
Converted to
MMBtu
Electricity 1.02E+07 kWh 34697
Natural Gas 2.21E+07 kBtu 22113
*Note that because this analysis was performed prior to adoption of the General Plan 2040, some natural gas usage
was assumed in the CalEEMod report. Electricity equivalency conversion does not change conclusions.
Sum of above
Total Annual Operational Energy Use 113,050 MMBtu
Operational Energy Use
137,381
109,786
Fuel Converted to Energy
Use
Total Fuel Use
(gallons)
Conversion Factor
Btu/gallon
Energy Calculations Page 3 of 5
Net Operational Vehicular Fuel Energy Use
Existing Use VMT:1,786,678
Resultant Net Annual Gasoline Use:384,599 gallons
Resultant Net Annual Diesel Use:43,068 gallons
Source
Diesel 43,068 [3]5,917 MMBtu
Gasoline 384,599 [4]42,224 MMBtu
Total Energy Use from Net Operational Fuel 48,140 MMBtu
Existing and Net Operational Built Environment
Net
Type of Energy Annual Usage Units
Converted to
MMBtu
Energy Use in
MMBtu
Electricity 8.44E+05 kWh 2880 31817
Natural Gas 2.79E+06 kBtu 2791.03 19322
Total 5671 51139
Sum of above
Total Net Annual Operational Energy Use 99,279 MMBtu
Existing and Net Energy Use
To determine the net increase in fuel usage, fuel usage of the existing uses at the site can be subtracted from the gross
consumption above. The following number also incorproates the TDM reduction identified in the Operational calculations.
Existing
Net Fuel Use
(gallons)
Conversion Factor Fuel Converted to Energy
UseBtu/gallon
137,381
109,786
Energy Calculations Page 4 of 5
Sources
Unless otherwise noted, information in these calculations is from the project-specific Air Quality/Emissions Assessment for the
project, including CalEEMod output tables.
[1] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad
Compression-Ignition Engines in MOVES2014b . July 2018. Available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100UXEN.pdf.
[2] United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. National Transportation Statistics
2018 . Available at: https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-anddata/national-
transportation-statistics/223001/ntsentire2018q4.pdf.
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/archive/00352205.pdf
[4] California Air Resources Board, CA-GREET 2.0 Supplemental Document and Tables of Changes, Appendix C, Supplement to
the LCFS CA-GREET 2.0 Model, 12/15/2014 , page C-24, Table 10. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2015/lcfs2015/lcfs15appc.pdf
[5] California Air Resources Board (CARB), EMFAC2021 v1.0.0., 2021. Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools-emfac-software-and
[6] Anticipated TDM reduction information is from the the project-specific CEQA Transportation Analysis.
Acronyms used include:
Btu = British Thermal Units
hrs = hours
kBtu = Thousand British Thermal Units
kWH = kilowatt hours
MMBtu = Million British Thermal Units
MPG = miles per gallon
TDM = Transportation Demand Management
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Energy Calculations Page 5 of 5
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT D
to the
800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
800 Dubuque Avenue
CEQA Transportation Analysis
Prepared for:
Lamphier-Gregory
March 24, 2023
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Hexagon Office: 4 North Second Street, Suite 400
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: 408.971.6100
Hexagon Job Number: 22TD03
Client Name: Lamphier-Gregory
800 Dubuque Avenue – CEQA Transportation Analysis
i | Page
Executive Summary
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this report includes an analysis of Vehicles Miles Travelled (VMT) and an evaluation of potential impacts to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities for the proposed redevelopment of 800 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco to a higher density Office/Research & Development uses.
The project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT as it is located less than ½ mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. The project is proposing an FAR of 3.3, would not exceed the required number of parking spaces and is consistent with the land use designation under the City’s 2040 General Plan. The project would also implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program as required by the Municipal Code that requires all non-residential
projects that would generate more than 100 daily trips to implement various trip reduction measures to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips (SOV) and achieve a minimum 50% alternative mode use. Given its proximity to the Caltrain station, the project is expected to achieve higher than the minimum 50% alternative mode use. Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis is not required.
The project would not remove any pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new pedestrian facilities. Accordingly, the project would have no significant impact on pedestrian facilities. The project would provide on-site bicycle parking facilities. The project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new bicycle facilities. Accordingly, the project would have no significant impact on bicycle facilities. The project is expected to add a high number of new transit riders. However, given the extensive services available, the new riders could be accommodated. The project would therefore have no significant impact on transit service. Adequate corner sight distance should be provided for drivers exiting both project driveways. The project would underground 462 linear feet of electrical line and clear all line-of-sight obstructions along the project’s frontage on Dubuque Avenue. The project shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the site sight distance is adequate at both project driveways. With the provision of adequate sight distance at both project driveways, the project’s impact on safety would be reduced to less than significant.
800 Dubuque Avenue – CEQA Transportation Analysis
ii | Page
The project would not reroute or change any of the City streets in its vicinity that would impact emergency vehicle access to properties along Dubuque Avenue. The proposed site access roadways would accommodate emergency vehicles. Thus, the project would not result in any emergency vehicle access impact that would be considered significant.
800 Dubuque Avenue – Transportation Analysis
1 | Page
Project Description
The purpose of this report is to analyze the transportation-related impacts of the proposed Office/Research & Development project at 800 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The proposed project would involve demolition of the three existing buildings located on the 800 to 890 Dubuque Avenue parcels and construction of three new office/research and development (R&D) buildings. The project would be comprised of three buildings: the 10-story North building, the 6-story South building, and the 9-story West building, for a total of up to approximately 900,000 square feet of floor area. The north building would be the tallest at approximately 195 feet (including the mechanical penthouse). The buildings would be connected by a two-story podium that provides open space and an approximately 7,200 square foot fitness center. The center of the site would contain a plaza and courtyard lined with on-site food/beverage and tenant amenity uses totaling approximately 6,600 square feet, as well as an approximately 7,500 square foot event center. The project is intended to be a mix of R&D space and offices.
The west building would be oriented along Dubuque Avenue, and the north and south buildings would be oriented along the internal roadways. The project is located one-quarter mile north of the South San Francisco Caltrain station. The development is consistent with the land use designation in the City’s General Plan, Shape SSF 2040, and related zoning, which plan for higher-density, transit-oriented uses at and around the project site. Structured parking would be provided in four stories below grade, with approximately 1,335 parking spaces. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via two driveways on Dubuque Avenue.
This report includes an analysis of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), potential impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit services, and the project’s safety and emergency access.
800 Dubuque Avenue – Transportation Analysis
2 | Page
CEQA Analysis
VMT Analysis
Pursuant to SB 743, the CEQA 2019 Update Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) states that vehicle miles travelled (VMT) will be the metric in analyzing transportation impacts for land use projects for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes. The City of South San Francisco has adopted certain thresholds of significance based on the project type to guide in determining when a project will have a significant transportation impact. For non-retail land use projects, a significant impact would occur if the VMT would be above the threshold, which is defined as 15% below the regional average.
The City of South San Francisco provides screening criteria for development projects. The criteria are based on the type of project, characteristics, and/or location. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, the project is expected to result in less-than-significant impacts, and a detailed CEQA VMT analysis is not required. The City’s policy states that projects within ½ mile of an existing or planned high-quality transit corridor or major transit station should be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. However, this presumption would not apply if the project FAR is less than 0.75, includes parking that is higher than required by the City, is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, or replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of market-rate units. The project site is located less than one-quarter mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. The project is proposing an FAR of 3.3, would not exceed the required number of parking spaces, and is consistent with the land use proposed in the City’s General Plan, Shape SSF 2040. Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis is not required.
The project would also implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program as required by the Municipal Code, which requires all new developments to implement various trip reduction measures to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips (SOV) based on their anticipated effect on the City’s transportation network. The project would be categorized as a Tier 4 development, which includes all office and R&D projects with at least 400,000 s.f. of gross floor area and requires a minimum 50% alternative mode use. The project would implement TDM measures to encourage employees and visitors to use transit, given its proximity to the Caltrain station.
Cumulative Impact Analysis
According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), a finding of a less-than-significant project impact based on project screening criteria would imply a less than significant cumulative impact. The project aligns with the land use controls under the City’s General Plan, Shape SSF 2040, which plans for higher-density, transit-oriented uses at and around the project site: re-imagining the area as a new urban corridor accessible to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. Therefore, the project would be considered as part of the cumulative solution to meet the General Plan’s long-range transportation goals and would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact.
Pedestrians, Bicycles and Transit
Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks are provided on the east side of Dubuque Avenue from Oyster Point Boulevard to Grand Avenue, and along Grand Avenue from Gateway Boulevard to Airport Boulevard. The signalized intersections at Dubuque Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue provide crosswalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian-actuated pedestrian-crossing phases on all approaches. The project would reconstruct the sidewalk along its frontage on Dubuque Avenue by moving it away from the curb and configuring it in a winding path through planting and trees to provide enhanced comfort and safety for pedestrians (see Figure 1). Striped crosswalks would be provided across the north and the south driveways to provide connections to existing sidewalks to the north and south of the project site.
800 Dubuque Avenue – Transportation Analysis
3 | Page
As part of the South San Francisco Caltrain Reconstruction Project, a new pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing was constructed under the Caltrain tracks that provides a direct connection for pedestrians and bicyclists between areas to the west (Airport Boulevard) and east (Poletti Way and East Grand Avenue) of the Caltrain tracks. This undercrossing also provides a connection to the new Caltrain station platform.
The South San Francisco Caltrain station is currently pedestrian-accessible from Dubuque Avenue via a staircase located at the northwest corner of the signalized intersection at Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue. However, no ADA access is provided to the Caltrain station from Dubuque Avenue. The 580 Dubuque Avenue project, which is located adjacent to the Caltrain station parking lot is currently under development and is conditioned to provide a pedestrian route, including ADA access, to the Caltrain
station.
The project is well situated to take advantage of the existing and planned pedestrian facilities in the
immediate vicinity. The existing network of sidewalks and crosswalks, together with the planned addition of ADA access to the Caltrain station from Dubuque Avenue (via the 580 Dubuque Avenue project),
provide good connectivity and safe routes to transit services and other points of interest in the downtown area.
The project would not remove any pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with the Active South City, the City of South San Francisco’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans. Accordingly, the project would have
no significant impact on pedestrian facilities.
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle access to the project site is currently limited as there are no bike lanes on Dubuque Avenue. As stated above, the new pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing provides bicycle access between East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way and Airport Boulevard, with direct access to the Caltrain station platform. Bicycle access between the project site and the South San Francisco Caltrain station would be provided via the existing Caltrain Station access driveway on Dubuque Avenue. Other existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site are Class II bike lanes on Airport Boulevard north of Miller Avenue.
The project would provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking facilities on site to meet the requirements of South San Francisco municipal code. The project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans. Thus, the project would have no significant impact on bicycle facilities.
Transit Facilities
Existing transit service to the study area is provided by Caltrain, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Water Emergency Transit Agency (WETA), San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) and commuter
shuttles. The project site is located less than one-quarter mile from the Caltrain station.
Caltrain provides commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy. The South San Francisco
Caltrain Station serves local and limited-stop trains with 40 to 60-minute headways during weekdays. The project is located one-quarter mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain station.
The recently reconstructed South San Francisco Caltrain station provides passengers access to the downtown from the station’s center platform via ramps connecting to the newly constructed tunnel
underneath the Caltrain tracks. The tunnel connects to a pedestrian plaza at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard on the west side of the tracks and a transit plaza at the intersection of Grand Avenue and
Poletti Way on the east side of the tracks. Buses and shuttles pick up and drop off Caltrain passengers from the new east-side plaza instead of the parking lot on the west side of the station, which results in
time savings for passengers commuting to the City’s biotech job center on the east side of the tracks.
Combined with the Caltrain Electrification project, the reconstructed station is expected to see increased
service levels, which has been included in Caltrain planning.
800 Dubuque Avenue – Transportation Analysis
4 | Page
The two BART stations closest to the project area are the San Bruno Station and the South San Francisco Station. Both stations are located within 3 miles of the project site. The Genesis One Tower Place shuttle (OTP) operated by commute.org provides service between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and the South San Francisco BART station. The OTP shuttle operates along Dubuque Avenue and currently has a stop on the southern end of the project site. With the proposed redevelopment, the shuttle stop would be facilitated on site along the drop-off zone that would be
provided on the north side of the project site via the north driveway (see Figure 2).
WETA provides weekday commuter ferry service between Oakland/Alameda ferry terminals and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal at Oyster Point. The South San Francisco Ferry terminal is located approximately 2.5 miles from the project site. Shuttle service is provided between the South San
Francisco ferry terminal and the Caltrain station.
SamTrans provides bus service primarily on the west side of US 101. The closest bus stops to the project
site are approximately 0.5 miles to the west at the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Linden Avenue and are served by Routes 292 and 397. Recently, SamTrans has extended service to the East of 101
Area via Route 130. The closest bus stop served by Route 130 is located at the Gateway Boulevard/Corporate Drive intersection, which is approximately 1 mile from the project site.
Commuter shuttles provide weekday commute connections between the Caltrain station and BART, the WETA ferry terminal, and local employers in the East of 101 Area. All shuttles are wheelchair-accessible
and equipped with a bicycle rack on the front of the vehicle. The new transit plaza at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Poletti Way, on the east side of the Caltrain tracks, provides a direct pedestrian connection between the Caltrain station and the following shuttle services: the Genesis One Tower Place (OTP) shuttle, the Oyster Point Caltrain (OPC) shuttle, the Utah-Grand Caltrain (UGC) shuttle, and the
Oyster Point Ferry (OPF) shuttle.
The project is expected to add a substantial number of new transit riders. However, with reduced transit
ridership following COVID-19 pandemic, and the number of different services available (Caltrain, SamTrans busses, shuttles to the BART and ferry stations), it is anticipated that substantial new ridership
could be accommodated.
The project would not produce a detrimental impact to local transit or shuttle service. The project would
therefore have no significant impact on transit service.
Safety (Sight Distance)
The site driveways were evaluated to determine whether vehicles exiting the site would have adequate sight distance to see bicycles or motor vehicles traveling on Dubuque Avenue. The minimum acceptable sight distance is what the CA MUTCD has defined as stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on roadway speeds. For Dubuque Avenue, which has a posted speed limit of 30 mph, the stopping sight distance is 250 feet for motor vehicles (based on a design speed of 35 mph). Accordingly, a driver must be able to see 250 feet along Dubuque Avenue to be able to avoid a collision with other vehicles. Factors that can affect sight distance are geometric features such as horizontal and vertical curves in the road, or line-of-sight obstructions like on-street parking, landscaping, and signs. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway or intersection and provides drivers with the ability to exit a driveway or locate sufficient gaps in traffic.
Based on observations conducted in the field, it appears that there would be adequate sight distance for drivers exiting the project site looking right to the north on Dubuque Avenue at both driveways. The project will remove all existing sign boards near the proposed driveways. However, for drivers exiting the project site to travel south on Dubuque Avenue, it appears that there would be inadequate sight distance looking left to the south on Dubuque Avenue due to a slight horizontal curve and line-of-sight obstructions. The line-of-sight obstructions include utility poles, landscaping, sign boards and the metal fence on the south side of the project site (see Figure 3).
The project proposes to underground approximately 462 linear feet of electrical line along the project’s frontage on Dubuque Avenue and clear all line-of sight obstructions along the project’s frontage on
800 Dubuque Avenue – Transportation Analysis
5 | Page
Dubuque Avenue. The project shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the sight distance is adequate at both project driveways, which could include the following measures.
• The applicant shall coordinate with the City to decrease the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue to 25 mph.
• The applicant shall coordinate with the City to remove line-of-sight obstructions (vegetation and sign boards) within the City’s right of way to the south of the project.
• The applicant shall coordinate with the adjacent property of 720 Dubuque Avenue/PG&E easement to push back the existing metal fence on the southern border of the project site and
remove vegetation to provide a clear zone on the corner of 720 Dubuque Avenue/PG&E easement and the project’s southern driveway.
With the provision adequate sight distance at both project driveways, the project’s impact on safety would
be reduced to less than significant.
Emergency and Truck Access
Emergency access was evaluated to determine whether the project would provide adequate vehicular ingress and egress to the project site, and a viable route to and through the project site. A review of the preliminary fire access plan prepared by Perkins & Will shows that adequate access would be provided for emergency vehicles to the site. The project site would be served by two driveways, one that would be located along the northern perimeter and the other that would be located along the southern perimeter of the project site. The two driveways would loop around the project site (see Figure 2) to provide vehicular circulation along the entire perimeter of the project site. The plan shows that the perimeter road would be at least 26 feet wide which would be adequate to facilitate fire apparatus ingress/egress and would be located 15 to 30 feet from outer edge of the building.
The site plan shows that the project would provide a drop-off zone on the north side of the project for passenger loading in front of the west building that would be accessible via the north driveway.
A truck loading area is proposed for the west building on the south side that can be accessed via the southern driveway, and a combined truck loading area is proposed for the north and the south buildings on the east end of the project site that can be accessed via both driveways. The site plan shows trash enclosures for all three buildings adjacent to the truck loading areas.
Hexagon reviewed the truck turning templates prepared by BKF engineers for a WB-40 truck and a front-loading garbage truck (ACX64) as these vehicles would enter and exit the site. The turning templates showed that these vehicles would be able to navigate through the site to and from the loading dock and the trash collection areas without obstruction. Since the trash enclosures would be located next to the loading areas, adequate clearance would be provided for garbage trucks to empty the bins over the truck. Since garbage collection would occur on-site, along the perimeter road, traffic operations would not be affected along Dubuque Avenue.
The proposed project would not reroute or change any of the City streets in its vicinity that would impact emergency vehicle access to properties along Dubuque Avenue. The proposed site access roadways would accommodate emergency vehicles. Thus, the project would not result in any emergency vehicle access impact that would be considered significant.
800 Dubuque Avenue - CEQA Transportation Analysis
Figure 1
Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
LEGENDLEGEND
Ɣ
űǁ
Ɣ
A
B
C
D
E
ű
F
ɼ
G
A
B
C
D
E
H
H
F
G
I
I
H
800 Dubuque Avenue - CEQA Transportation Analysis
Figure 2
Proposed Vehicular Access
LEGENDLEGEND
ű
ADA DROP-OFF
SHU
T
T
L
E
DROP
-
O
F
F
ADA DROP-OFF SHUTTLEDROP-OFF CALTRAIN TRACKSDUBUQUE AVENUE
ɼ
ű
E
Ɣ
űǁ
Ɣ
A
A
ɼ
ɼ
C
B
C
B
Ȃȃ
& 02B
D
E
D
800 Dubuque Avenue - CEQA Transportation Analysis
Figure 3
Field Visit - Sight Distance
Sight Distance for a Driver Exiting the Southern
Driveway looking Left onto Dubuque Avenue
Sight Distance for a Driver Exiting the Northern
Driveway looking Left onto Dubuque Avenue
800 Dubuque Avenue - CEQA Transportation Analysis
Figure 4
Clear Sight Triangles
Clear Sight Triangle Looking Left - North Dwy Clear Sight Triangle Looking Left - South Dwy