Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 70-2022 (22-333)  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Errata  ERRATA   for the   580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration State Clearinghouse Number: 2022010277     PURPOSE OF THIS ERRATA SHEET This errata sheet is intended to be appended to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration  (IS/MND) for the proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue Project (project).   The revisions in this document are not “substantial revisions” that could trigger recirculation of the  IS/MND or preparation of an environmental impact report under CEQA Guidelines sections 15073.5 and  15074.1. No new significant effects are identified, no new mitigation measures are added and revisions  to the mitigation measures would result in measures that are equivalent or more effective, the  significance of identified impacts remains unchanged, and all impacts are either below significance levels  or reduced to that level through application of identified mitigation.  REVISIONS TO THE IS/MND The following are minor text changes, additions, or modifications made to the IS/MND.   A page number from the IS/MND and explanation of each revision is included in italics preceding each  revision.  Existing and revised IS/MND text is indented. Deletions are noted by strikethrough; additions are  underlined.  Page 2: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) requested the following changes to clarify  the purpose of and process for review by DTSC.  The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is the lead regulatory agency for  remediation of the project site. A California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act Agreement was  executed between the applicant and DTSC on January 23, 2020 which outlines requirements for  redevelopment of the site to facilitate the assessment and remediation of the Site. A Response Plan  is required to be approved by DTSC prior to the start of construction activities at the site, which will  detail the required remediation activities. A Certificate of Completion would be issued by DTSC once  actions are completed at the site to their satisfaction upon determining that all response actions  have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Response Plan.       Errata    580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  Pages 3, 18, and 49: DTSC requested the following changes to the characterization of contamination at  the site in the project description, summary table, and impact discussion on these pages respectively.  Page 3: (see above)   The site is impacted by contamination from historic and adjacent uses, mostly due to historic  railroad use of the site and undocumented fill. The main contamination of concern is mainly low  levels of lead and other metals in the soil. Removal of impacted soil is proposed as part of the  project as further discussed in Section 9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials.  Page 18: (see above)  Hazardous Site Impact: The site is impacted by contamination from historic and adjacent uses,  mostly due to historic railroad use of the site and undocumented fill. The main contamination of  concern is mainly low levels of lead and other metals in the soil. Removal and mitigation of impacted  soil is proposed as part of project construction activities and would be performed per requirements  of the regulatory agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, as outlined in Haz‐ 1.  Page 49: (see above)   Soils: The primary contaminants of concern in site soils were mainly low  levels  of  metals,  including  antimony,  arsenic,  cobalt,  copper,  lead,  nickel,  and zinc.  The  lead  and  copper  concentrations at some locations may qualify those soils as hazardous waste (Class 1 and Class  2). Additional soil contaminants were sampled that exceeded residential – but not commercial –  screening levels including petroleum hydrocarbons (fuels). Given the proposed non‐residential  development planned for the site, these are not further specified here. Arsenic and asbestos  were detected in the soil at levels consistent with background levels in natural soils in the area.   Page 49: DTSC requested additional discussion of soil vapor. The following bullet point is hereby added  under the Groundwater bullet point on this page.   Soil Vapor: One of four groundwater samples detected benzene at a level that exceeded the  direct exposure screening level for vapor intrusion.  Additional vapor testing was determined  not to be necessary because of the depth of excavation and the waterproofing to be done would  effectively mitigate any potential for impacts from vapor intrusion.   Page 49: DTSC noted that the docket number for the CLRRA Agreement needed to be revised in this  location.  DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control) is the lead regulatory agency for  remediation of the project site. A CLRRA Agreement was executed between the applicant and DTSC  on January 23, 2020 (Docket No. HSA‐ FY19/20‐013), which outlines requirements for remediation of  the site pursuant to CLRRA (see Attachment C).   Pages 50 and 18:  DTSC has specified the requirement for air monitoring in the Response Plan, as also  specified in revisions to Mitigation Measure Haz‐1. These same revisions are made in the both the impact  discussion and summary table on the two pages indicated.      580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Errata  Mitigation Measure  Haz‐1: Response Plan Implementation and Completion …  1. Soil Management. The proposed construction activities will disturb soil during the excavation,  site grading, construction of new foundations, and installation of utility lines. During excavation  activities, air monitoring and dust control measures will be implemented. The soil management  objectives for the site are to control exposure of potentially hazardous constituents in soil to  construction workers, nearby residents and/or pedestrians, and future users of the site, all as  implemented pursuant to the DTSC‐approved plan. The components of the Response Plan will  establish  and  maintain  required  health  and  safety  procedures  to  control  worker  and  public  exposure to site contaminants during construction including but not necessarily limited to the  elements listed below.  2. Dust Control. During handling of potentially contaminated soils, an enhanced dust control plan  with provisions to protect construction workers and the public will be implemented through  implementation  of  engineering  controls,  to  control  generation  of  dust  and  resulting  off‐site  migration of contaminants in site soil. Dust control measures will include:    Community air monitoring.   Covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting.   ...  Page 52: The following clarifications to the airport‐related height constraints and approval process were  informed by the comments from the San Francisco International Airport (SFO).  Development on the project site is limited to maximum heights below critical aeronautical surfaces,  which are between 182.67 and 223.63 approximately 810 and 850 feet above mean sea level.  Additionally, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) identifies obstruction evaluation surfaces at  the site at heights between 182.67 and 223.63 feet above mean sea level. Penetrations above this  level (for construction equipment and/or permanent structures) are not necessarily considered  hazards to air navigation, and higher structures , but could be modified permitted through  consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).19 Factoring in the height of the site, the  applicant estimates that the proposed project would reach maximum heights of 173.5 feet above  mean sea level, all of which would be below consistent with the ALUCP and the lowest FAA height  limits at the site of 182.67 feet. The project appears to be consistent with height limitation identified  in the ALUCP. Notification and consultation with the FAA would be required under CFR part 77.9 if it  is determined that any temporary construction equipment or permanent structures would rise  above the FAA obstruction evaluation surfaces. As noted in the project description, the project is  subject to Airport Land Use Commission consistency review to and would ensure that the project  complies with regulatory requirements for air hazards. Therefore, this impact would be less than  significant.    Response to Comments Memo   LAMPHIER‐GREGORY                                4100 REDWOOD ROAD, STE 20A ‐ #601                             OAKLAND, CA 94619  LAMPHIER-GREGORY MEMO TO:  Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner    City of South San Francisco    Economic and Community Development Department    315 Maple Avenue    South San Francisco, CA 94080  FROM:  Rebecca Auld, Vice President    Lamphier‐Gregory, Inc  SUBJECT: 580 Dubuque Avenue Project IS/MND – Review and Discussion of Comments   DATE:  March 2, 2022  PURPOSE OF THIS MEMO This memo provides a brief discussion of comments received in response to the Initial Study/Mitigated  Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the 580 Dubuque Avenue Project (“project”). Though the California  Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not require a lead agency to formally respond to written  comments received on an IS/MND, this memorandum is being provided by the IS/MND preparer to  demonstrate that the comments do not present substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that  the project may have a significant environmental impact, or that the IS/MND should be revised and  recirculated for public review.  A separate errata sheet has also been prepared to address minor corrections and clarifications informed  by the comments received as noted in the response to comments below and included in the conclusions  in this document. The errata sheet will be appended to the IS/MND.  SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS In summary, the letters have not raised any issues that would require recirculation of the IS/MND or  preparation of an environmental impact report under sections 15073.5 and 15074.1 of the CEQA  Guidelines as no new significant effects were identified, no new mitigation measures were added and  proposed revisions to the mitigation measures would result in measures that are equivalent or more  effective, the significance of identified impacts remains unchanged, and all impacts are either below  significance levels or reduced to that level through application of identified mitigation.   3/2/22    PAGE 2 of 3  LAMPHIER‐GREGORY                                4100 REDWOOD ROAD, STE 20A ‐ #601                             OAKLAND, CA 94619  COMMENTS RECEIVED The comment period ran from January 19, 2022 through February 17, 2022. Four comment letters were  received during the comment period, as listed below.    California Department of Fish and Wildlife Headquarters: Lance Salisbury, Senior Environmental  Scientist, email sent January 25, 2022   San Francisco International Airport Letter: John Bergener, Airport Planning Director, dated  February 10, 2022   California Department of Transportation Letter: Mark Leong, District Branch Chief, dated  February 16, 2022   Department of Toxic Substances Control: Nathan Unangst, Engineering Geologist, email sent  February 17, 2022  DISCUSSION OF COMMENT LETTERS California Department of Fish and Wildlife Headquarters  This letter was a notification that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Habitat  Conservation Planning Branch (i.e., CDFW Headquarters) no longer needs to receive CEQA notices or  documents. The IS/MND notice had also been routed to the Bay Delta Region (Region 3) office as  indicated.  This is not a comment on the environmental analysis and does not require recirculation of the IS/MND  or preparation of an environmental impact report under section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.  San Francisco International Airport  This letter confirms and clarifies the regulations specific to this site in regards to its proximity to the San  Francisco International Airport (SFO) and the need for ALUC/FAA approvals.  The letter agrees with conclusions in the IS/MND related to airport noise and hazards (discussed on  IS/MND pages 52 and 63). Clarifications to the approval process and allowable heights have been added  to the errata sheet.   This information does not result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures, or changed impact  conclusions. The comments in this letter, this response, and the related errata do not require  recirculation of the IS/MND or preparation of an environmental impact report under section 15073.5 of  the CEQA Guidelines.   California Department of Transportation  This letter confirms and expands upon the methodology and conclusions from the IS/MND related to  vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (discussed on IS/MND page 69).   This letter also clarifies procedures in the event Caltrans permits/approvals are required for work or  encroachment in the Caltrans right‐of‐way (not anticipated), and the lead agency’s role in off‐site  mitigations (not anticipated). The project will follow applicable requirements and procedures.   3/2/22    PAGE 3 of 3  LAMPHIER‐GREGORY                                4100 REDWOOD ROAD, STE 20A ‐ #601                             OAKLAND, CA 94619  The letter makes suggestions to further minimize the potential for conflict between vehicles and  bicyclists / pedestrians at the below grade parking exit. These suggestions, which do not concern the  adequacy of the environmental analysis, have been provided to City staff and the applicant for  consideration of inclusion.   This information does not result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures or changed impact  conclusions. The comments in this letter and this response do not require recirculation of the IS/MND or  preparation of an environmental impact report under section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.   Department of Toxic Substances Control  This letter provides clarifications and revisions to the hazardous materials discussion and mitigation  measures (IS/MND pages 48 through 53) consistent with DTSC’s ongoing coordination as the regulatory  agency for remediation of the site. These have been added to the errata sheet. Revisions to the  mitigation measures result in measures that are equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding  potential significant effects and these revisions would not cause any potentially significant effect on the  environment.    The letter requests that copies of the two covenants mentioned on page 3 of the IS/MND be provided to  DTSC. These have been provided to DTSC by the applicant.  The letter requests clarification of the approximate number of trucks needed to remove the  contaminated soil. As detailed fully in Attachment A of the IS/MND, the following assumptions were  made regarding excavation:   Soil Remediation: 76,016 cubic yards exported – 9,502 truck trips   Grading/Excavation: 58,000 cubic yards exported – 7,250 truck trips  The above assumptions were used throughout the analysis in the IS/MND. This comment letter has also  been provided to the applicant.  This information does not result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures, or changed impact  conclusions. The comments in this letter, this response, and the related errata do not require  recirculation of the IS/MND or preparation of an environmental impact report under sections 15073.5  and 15074.1 of the CEQA Guidelines.   Comment Letters Received From: Wildlife CEQA <CEQA@wildlife.ca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 3:06 PM To: Espiritu, Christopher <Christopher.Espiritu@ssf.net> Subject: CEQA Public Notice - CDFW Contact Hello Christopher, The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is reaching out to CEQA lead agencies to inform you that the Habitat Conservation Planning Branch (i.e., CDFW Headquarters) no longer needs to receive CEQA notices or documents (attached). Unless there is a statewide CEQA action, CEQA notices need to be submitted to one of our CDFW Regional Offices. In the case of projects located in the City of South San Francisco, only our Bay Delta Region (Region 3) office needs to receive your CEQA documents and notices going forward. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Regions/3 When submitting your CEQA public notices or documents to the State Clearinghouse (i.e., through the CEQAnet Web Portal), please identify the correct CDFW Regional Office and do not include CDFW Headquarters on the Notice of Completion Transmittal Form (NOC). Again, please discontinue sending CEQA documents or notices to CDFW Headquarters (1416 9th Street, 12th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814; P.O. Box 944209, Sacramento, CA 94244-2090; or HCPB@wildlife.ca.gov). Removing CDFW Headquarters will assist us greatly by reducing duplicate notices received by HQ and Regional offices. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. NOTE – THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A COMMENT ON ANY INDIVIDUAL CEQA PROJECT (I.E., NOT A CEQA COMMENT LETTER). Kindly, Lance Salisbury Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor) Environmental Review and Permitting Program - Sacramento February 10, 2022 TRANSMITTED VIA E-MAIL and U.S. MAIL christopher.espiritu@ssf.net Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department 315 Maple Street South San Francisco, California 94080 Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments: 580 Dubuque Project San Francisco International Airport (SFO or the Airport) staff have reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the 580 Dubuque Avenue Project (the Proposed Project), located in the City of South San Francisco. We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments on the IS/MND. The Proposed Project is located at 580 Dubuque Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-021-998), at the southern end of Dubuque Avenue, north of the Grand Avenue overpass as it intersects with US Highway 101, in the City of South San Francisco. The Proposed Project would construct a new 290,000-square-foot, eight-story, office/research and development building and structured parking four stories below grade. Site improvements would include sidewalks, landscaping, and lighting along Dubuque Avenue. Ground floor amenities would include a fitness center, conference space, and a café with an adjacent outdoor terrace. The maximum height of the Proposed Project would be 155 feet above ground level. The Proposed Project site is inside Airport Influence Area B as defined by the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO ALUCP). The Proposed Project site would be located outside the 65 decibel (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour and the Safety compatibility zones, and therefore would appear to be consistent with the Noise and Safety Compatibility policies adopted in the SFO ALUCP. As described in Exhibit IV-17 of the ALUCP (see Attachment), the critical aeronautical surfaces at the Proposed Project location is at an elevation of between approximately 810 and 850 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) as defined from the origin of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Given that the ground elevation at the Proposed Project site is around 18.5 feet AMSL (NAVD88), the heights of the buildings, as currently defined (as 155 feet above ground level), would be below the critical aeronautical surfaces and the Proposed Project would be compatible with the Airspace Compatibility Policies of the SFO ALUCP, subject to the issuance of a Determination of No Hazard from the Federal Aviation Administration (see below) for any proposed structures, and determinations from the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County as the designated Airport Land Use Commission. We note that in the Initial Study Checklist for the Proposed Project, the height limitations described in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section are not characterized accurately. The section states: “Development on the project site is limited to maximum heights between 182.67 and 223.63 feet above mean sea level, but could be modified through consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).” The “maximum heights” described in the previous sentence are FAA obstruction evaluation surfaces described in 14 Code of DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7-257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D Christopher Espiritu, City of South San Francisco February 10, 2022 Page 2 of 2 Federal Regulations Part 77 Section 19, of which penetrations are considered obstructions, but not necessarily considered hazards to air navigation, and higher structures could be permissible through consultation with the FAA. The development at the Proposed Project site is limited by the SFO ALUCP’s critical aeronautical surfaces which range between 810 to 850 feet AMSL (NAVD88). Thus, the Proposed Project appears to be consistent with both height limitations (FAA and ALUCP critical aeronautical surface) identified in the SFO ALUCP, pending an FAA determination of no hazard. This determination does not negate the requirement for the Proposed Project sponsor to undergo Federal Aviation Administration review as described in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77 for both (1) the permanent structures and (2) any temporary cranes or other equipment taller than the permanent buildings which would be required to construct those structures. Due to the proximity of the Proposed Project to the Airport and certain procedures from Runway 10L-28R, Airspace Protection Policies (AP-1 through AP-4) from the SFO ALUCP is enclosed as reminders of incompatible site characteristics, especially as it pertains to solar panels building materials/features that reflect and create bright lights/glare. * * * The Airport appreciates your consideration of these comments. If I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 821-6678 or at nupur.sinha@flysfo.com. Sincerely, Nupur Sinha Director of Planning and Environmental Affairs San Francisco International Airport P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, California 94128 Attachment cc: Susy Kalkin, ALUC Audrey Park, SFO Environmental Affairs Manager DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7-257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D THE CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY OCTOBER 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport [IV-34] Airport/Land Use Compatibility Policies and associated with human disease of varying severity. b. Biosafety Level 3 practices, safety equipment, and facility design and construction are applicable to clinical, diagnostic, teaching, research, or production facilities in which work is done with indigenous or exotic agents with a potential for respiratory transmission, and which may cause serious and potentially lethal infection. c. Biosafety Level 4 practices, safety equipment, and facility design and construction are applicable for work with dangerous and exotic agents that pose a high individual risk of life-threatening disease, which may be transmitted via the aerosol route and for which there is no available vaccine or therapy. 4.5 Airspace Protection The compatibility of proposed land uses with respect to airspace protection shall be evaluated in accordance with the policies set forth in this section. These policies are established with a twofold purpose: 1. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare by minimizing the public’s exposure to potential safety hazards that could be created through the construction of tall structures. 2. To protect the public interest in providing for the orderly development of SFO by ensuring that new development in the Airport environs avoids compromising the airspace in the Airport vicinity. This avoids the degradation in the safety, utility, efficiency, and air service capability of the Airport that could be caused by the attendant need to raise visibility minimums, increase minimum rates of climb, or cancel, restrict, or redesign flight procedures. 4.5.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS REGARDING TALL STRUCTURES 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace, governs the FAA’s review of proposed construction exceeding certain height limits, defines airspace obstruction criteria, and provides for FAA aeronautical studies of proposed construction. Appendix F describes the FAA airspace review process and the extent of FAA authority related to airspace protection. 4.5.2 PART 77, SUBPART B, NOTIFICATION PROCESS Federal regulations require any person proposing to build a new structure or alter an existing structure with a height that would exceed the elevations described in CFR Part 77, Subpart B, Section 77.9, to prepare an FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, and submit the notice to the FAA. The regulations apply to buildings and other structures or portions of structures, such as mechanical equipment, flag poles, and other projections that may exceed the aforementioned elevations. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7-257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D THE CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY OCTOBER 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport Airport/Land Use Compatibility Policies [IV-35] Exhibit IV-10 depicts the approximate elevations at which the 14 CFR Part 77 notification requirements would be triggered; see Exhibit IV-11 for a close-up view of the northern half and Exhibit IV-12 for a close-up view of the southern half of the area. These exhibits are provided for informational purposes only. Official determinations of the areas and elevations within which the federal notification requirements apply are subject to the authority of the FAA. The FAA is empowered to require the filing of notices for proposed construction based on considerations other than height. For example, in some areas of complex airspace and high air traffic volumes, the FAA may be concerned about the potential for new construction of any height to interfere with electronic navigation aids. In these areas, the FAA will want to review all proposed construction projects. The FAA has developed an on-line tool for project sponsors to use in determining whether they are required to file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. Sponsors of proposed projects are urged to refer to this website to determine whether they are required to file Form 7460-1 with the FAA: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showNoNoticeRequiredToolForm 4.5.3 AIRSPACE MAPPING Part 77, Subpart C, establishes obstruction standards for the airspace around airports including approach zones, conical zones, transitional zones, and horizontal zones known as “imaginary surfaces.” Exhibit IV-13 depicts the Part 77 Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces at SFO. The imaginary surfaces rise from the primary surface, which is at ground level immediately around the runways. The surfaces rise gradually along the approach slopes associated with each runway end and somewhat more steeply off the sides of the runways. The FAA considers any objects penetrating these surfaces, whether buildings, trees or vehicles travelling on roads and railroads, as obstructions to air navigation. Obstructions may occur without compromising safe air navigation, but they must be marked, lighted, and noted on aeronautical publications to ensure that pilots can see and avoid them. Close-up views of the north and south sides of the Part 77 surfaces are provided in Exhibit IV-14 and Exhibit IV-15, respectively. Additionally, Exhibit IV-16 provides an illustration of the outer approach and transitional surfaces located on the southeast side of the Part 77 surfaces. Together with its tenant airlines, SFO has undertaken a mapping effort to illustrate the critical aeronautical surfaces that protect the airspace required for multiple types of flight procedures such as those typically factored into FAA aeronautical studies, as shown on Exhibit IV-17 and Exhibit IV-18. These aeronautical surfaces include those established in accordance with FAA Order 8260.3B, U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), and a surface representing the airspace required for One-Engine Inoperative (OEI) departures from Runway 28L (to the west through the San Bruno Gap).16 The exhibits depict the lowest elevations from the combination of the OEI procedure surface and all TERPS surfaces. The surfaces are defined with Required Obstacle Clearance (ROC) criteria to ensure safe separation of aircraft using the procedures from the underlying obstacles. Any proposed structures penetrating these surfaces are likely to receive Determinations of Hazard (DOH) from the FAA through the 7460-1 aeronautical study process. These surfaces indicate the maximum height at which structures can be considered compatible with Airport operations. 16 See Appendix F, Section F.3.2 for a discussion of one-engine inoperative procedures. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7-257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D 280 380 280 280 101 101 101 101 1 35 82 82 1 1 82 ROL L I N S R D HILL S I D E B L V D E 3RD A V E CALI F O R N I A D RBA Y S H ORE BLV D E L C A M I N O R E A L MI S S I O N R D 87TH ST AIRPORT BLV D C ALL A N BLVDGRAND A V E MILLER AVE SOUTHGATE AVE TROUSDALE DRS H A R P P ARK RDSNEATH LNPARK WY C RESPI DRFLE E T WO O D DR M U R C H I S O N D RSULLIVAN AVEST FRANCIS BLVDJOHN DALY B L V D RALSTON A VEHEL E N D RARROYO DRS A IR POR T B L VDSKYL I NE BO U LEVARD GENEV A A V E N H U M B O L D T S T FASSLER AVE BAYS H O R E HWYTILTON AVEN A M P HLE TT BLV DN MCDONNELL RDSTAT E HIG H WAY 3 5 H U N T I N G T O N A V E LINDA MAR B LVD HICKEY BLV D SHA W RDADELINE DRE 4TH AVETE R R A N OV A B LVDHILLSIDE DRLINDEN AVELO M ITA AVES SPRUCE AVES ERRA M ONTE BLVDCHESTNUT AVEN D E L A W A R E S T BELLEVU E A V E E GRAND AVE S N O R F O L K S THOLLY AVECARMELITA AVES LINDEN AVEUTAH AVE LO Y O L A D R RAY DRD W I G H T R D OCCIDENTAL AVE N S A N M A T E O D RCR E S T M O O R D R JENEVEIN AVEMADISON AVEMILLBRAE AVESISTER C I T I E S B L V D C R Y S T A L SPRINGS RDW S AN B R UNO AVES E B A S T I A N D RALTA ME SA DR LERIDA WYPARK PLAZA DRPARK BL V D J UNI P E RO SE RRA B L VDALICAN T E D R M A G N O L I A A V ESAN MATEO AVEBROADWAYHOFFMAN STRICHMOND DRSEVILLE DRMONTEREY RD R I D G EW O O D D R EASTON DREARL AVE S A N A N T O N I O A V E SHA R O N A V ELARKSPUR D RGA T E WAY DR EL C E R RITO AVECH ATEAU DRWESTLAKE AVE BELLA VISTA DRLITTLEFIELD AVEC R O C K E R A V E E MARKET ST LINCOLN AVE OAKS DR EL C A M I N O R E A LODDSTAD BLVDH U N T D R SUMMIT DREUCALYPTUS AVEHELEN DRSTATE HI GHWAY 35W SAN BR U N O A V EEL CAMINO REALS N EATH LNMA G N O L I A A V EHILLSIDE BLVDE 3RD AVEPacificaPacifica Daly CityDaly City San BrunoSan Bruno BrisbaneBrisbane San MateoSan Mateo ColmaColma HillsboroughHillsborough South San FranciscoSouth San Francisco MillbraeMillbrae BurlingameBurlingame San FranciscoSan Francisco Foster CityFoster City BroadmoorBroadmoor MontaraMontara San Pedro Valley County ParkSan Pedro Valley County Park San Bruno Mt State & Cnty ParkSan Bruno Mt State & Cnty Park Golden Gate National Rec AreaGolden Gate National Rec Area McNee Ranch State ParkMcNee Ranch State Park San Andreas LakeSan Andreas Lake 1. This map is intended for informational and conceptualplanning purposes, generally representing the aeronauticalsurfaces considered most critical by San FranciscoInternational Airport (SFO) and its constituent airlines. It doesnot represent actual survey data, nor should it be used as thesole source of information regarding compatibility with airspaceclearance requirements in the development of data for an FAAForm 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration.SFO does not certify its accuracy, information, or title to theproperties contained in this plan. SFO does make anywarrants of any kind, express or implied, in fact or by law, withrespect to boundaries, easements, restrictions, claims,overlaps, or other encumbrances affecting such properties. 2. This map does not replace the FAA's obstruction evaluation /airport airspace analysis (OE/AAA) review process. Proposingconstruction at elevations and heights that are lower than thecritical aeronautical surfaces shown on this map, (a) does notrelieve the construction sponsor of the obligation to file an FAAForm 7460-1, and (b) does not ensure that the proposal will beacceptable to the FAA, SFO, air carriers, or other agencies orstakeholders. SFO, San Mateo County, and local authoritieshaving jurisdiction reserve the right to re-assess, review, andseek modifications to projects that may be consistent with thiscritical aeronautical surfaces map but that through the FAAOE/AAA process are found to have unexpected impacts to thesafety or efficiency of operations at SFO. Notes: Exhibit IV-17CRITICAL AERONAUTICAL SURFACES-- NORTHWEST SIDE Comprehensive Airport Land Use Planfor the Environs of San Francisco International AirportC/CAGCity/County Association of Governmentsof San Mateo County, California Municipal Boundary Road Freeway Railroad Airport Property BART Station CALTRAIN Station Regional Park or Recreation Area Sources: San Francisco International Airport, JacobsConsultancy, and Planning Technology Inc., 2009 0 0.5 10.25 Miles NORTH Ground level(Terrain) Elevation of critical aeronautical surfaces, feetAbove Mean Sea Level (AMSL), North AmericanVertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) 100 Height of Critical Aeronautical Surfaces, Feet AboveGround Level (AGL) LEGEND Elevation of terrain, feet AMSL Criticalaeronauticalsurfaces AIRPORTMean sea level Elevation, feet AMSL100200300400Elevation of critical aeronautical surfaces, feet AMSL (represented on plan with contours) Height of critical aeronautical surfaces,feet AGL (represented on plan with color gradient) Calculated as - =0Ground level(Terrain) AB C A B C A B C A C 35 and lower 35- 65 65 - 100 100 - 150 150 and more DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7-257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D THE 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 Airport/Land Use Compatibility Policies [IV-55] Exhibit IV-19, which is provided for information purposes only, depicts a profile view of the lowest critical airspace surfaces along the extended centerline of Runway 10L-28R – the TERPS Obstacle Departure Procedure (ODP) surface, representing standard all-engines departures, and the approximate OEI surface developed by SFO through independent study in consultation with the airlines serving SFO. The exhibit also shows the terrain elevation beneath the airspace surfaces and various aircraft approach and departure profiles, based on varying operating assumptions. The exhibit illustrates a fundamental principle related to the design of airspace protection surfaces. The surfaces are always designed below the actual aircraft flight profile which they are designed to protect, thus providing a margin of safety. Note that the ODP climb profile is above the ODP airspace surface, and the OEI climb profile is above the OEI airspace surface. 4.5.4 AIRSPACE PROTECTION POLICIES The following airspace protection policies (AP) shall apply to the ALUCP. AP-1 COMPLIANCE WITH 14 CFR PART 77, SUBPART B, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION AP-1.1 Local Government Responsibility to Notify Project Sponsors Local governments should notify sponsors of proposed projects at the earliest opportunity to file Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA for any proposed project that would exceed the FAA notification heights, as shown approximately on Exhibit IV-10. Under Federal law, it is the responsibility of the project sponsor to comply with all notification and other requirements described in 14 CFR Part 77. This requirement applies independent of this ALUCP. AP-1.2 FAA Aeronautical Study Findings Required Before Processing Development Application The sponsor of a proposed project that would exceed the FAA notification heights, as shown approximately on Exhibit IV-10, shall present to the local government permitting agency with his or her application for a development permit, a copy of the findings of the FAA’s aeronautical study, or evidence demonstrating that he or she is exempt from having to file an FAA Form 7460-1. It is the responsibility of the local agency to consider the FAA determination study findings as part of its review and decision on the proposed project. AP-2 COMPLIANCE WITH FINDINGS OF FAA AERONAUTICAL STUDIES Project sponsors shall be required to comply with the findings of FAA aeronautical studies with respect to any recommended alterations in the building design and height and any recommended marking and lighting of their structures for their proposed projects to be deemed consistent with this ALUCP. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7-257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D THE 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 Airport/Land Use Compatibility Policies [IV-59] AP-3 MAXIMUM COMPATIBLE BUILDING HEIGHT In order to be deemed consistent with the ALUCP, the maximum height of a new building must be the lower of (1) the height shown on the SFO critical aeronautical surfaces map (Exhibits IV-17 and IV-18), or (2) the maximum height determined not to be a “hazard to air navigation” by the FAA in an aeronautical study prepared pursuant to the filing of Form 7460-1. For the vast majority of parcels, the height limits established in local zoning ordinances are lower than the critical airspace surfaces. In those cases, the zoning district height regulations will control. Compliance with the zoning district height and the SFO critical aeronautical surfaces map, however, does not relieve the construction sponsor of the obligation to file a FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, if required, and to comply with the determinations resulting from the FAA’s aeronautical study. For a project to be consistent with this ALUCP, no local agency development permits shall be issued for any proposed structure that would penetrate the aeronautical surfaces shown on Exhibits IV-17 and IV-18 or the construction of which has not received a Determination of No Hazard from the FAA, or which would cause the FAA to increase the minimum visibility requirements for any instrument approach or departure procedure at the Airport. AP-4 OTHER FLIGHT HAZARDS ARE INCOMPATIBLE Proposed land uses with characteristics that may cause visual, electronic, or wildlife hazards, particularly bird strike hazards, to aircraft taking off or landing at the Airport or in flight are incompatible in Area B of the Airport Influence Area. They may be permitted only if the uses are consistent with FAA rules and regulations. Proof of consistency with FAA rules and regulations and with any performance standards cited below must be provided to the Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG Board) by the sponsor of the proposed land use action. Specific characteristics that may create hazards to aircraft in flight and which are incompatible include: (a) Sources of glare, such as highly reflective buildings or building features, or bright lights, including search lights or laser displays, which would interfere with the vision of pilots making approaches to the Airport. (b) Distracting lights that that could be mistaken by pilots on approach to the Airport for airport identification lighting, runway edge lighting, runway end identification lighting, or runway approach lighting. (c) Sources of dust, smoke, or water vapor that may impair the vision of pilots making approaches to the Airport. (d) Sources of electrical interference with aircraft or air traffic control communications or navigation equipment, including radar. (e) Land uses that, as a regular byproduct of their operations, produce thermal plumes with the potential to rise high enough and at sufficient velocities to interfere with the control of aircraft in DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7-257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D THE 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 [IV-60] Airport/Land Use Compatibility Policies flight. Upward velocities of 4.3 meters (14.1 feet) per second at altitudes above 200 feet above the ground shall be considered as potentially interfering with the control of aircraft in flight.17 (f) Any use that creates an increased attraction for wildlife, particularly large flocks of birds, that is inconsistent with FAA rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, FAA Order 5200.5A, Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports, FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports, and any successor or replacement orders or advisory circulars. Exceptions to this policy are acceptable for wetlands or other environmental mitigation projects required by ordinance, statute, court order, or Record of Decision issued by a federal agency under the National Environmental Policy Act. 4.5.5 iALP AIRSPACE TOOL In consultation with C/CAG, SFO developed the iALP Airspace Tool, a web-based, interactive tool to evaluate the relationship of proposed buildings with the Airport’s critical airspace surfaces. The iALP Airspace Tool is designed to assist planners, developers, and other interested persons with the implementation of the airspace protection policies of the SFO ALUCP. The tool helps users determine: (1) the maximum allowable building height at a given site, and/or (2) whether a building penetrates a critical airspace surface, and by how much, given the proposed building height. A more detailed description of the iALP Airspace Tool and a tutorial explaining how to use it is presented in Appendix J. Use of this tool, however, does not relieve a project sponsor of the duty to comply with all federal regulations, including the obligation to file Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA. 17 This is a threshold established by the California Energy Commission in its review of power plant licensing applications. See Blythe Solar Power Project: Supplemental Staff Assessment, Part 2,. CEC-700-2010-004-REV1-SUP-PT2, July 2010. California Energy Commission. Docket Number 09-AFC-6, p. 25. This criterion is based on guidance established by the Australian Government Civil Aviation Authority (Advisory Circular AC 139-05(0), June 2004). The FAA’s Airport Obstructions Standards Committee (AOSC) is studying this matter but has not yet issued specific guidance. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7-257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 www.dot.ca.gov February 16, 2022 SCH #: 2022010277 GTS #: 04-SM-2022-00417 GTS ID: 25373 Co/Rt/Pm: SM/101/22.19 Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Dear Christopher Espiritu: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the 580 Dubuque Avenue Project. We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following comments are based on our review of the January 2022 IS/MND. Project Understanding The project proposes the construction and operation of a new 295,000‐square‐foot, 8‐ story, office/research and development (R&D) building and structured parking 4 stories below grade, with approximately 350 parking spaces. Project site improvements would also include sidewalks, landscaping, and lighting along Dubuque Avenue. Other amenities would include a fitness center, conference space, and a café with an adjacent outdoor terrace. The project site is within the boundaries of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP). The project is located adjacent to the United States Route (US)-101/Grand Avenue interchange and South San Francisco Caltrain station in South San Francisco. Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner February 16, 2022 Page 2 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Travel Demand Analysis With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Transportation Impact Studies, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide (link). The project VMT analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory. Per the IS/MND, this project is found to have a less than significant VMT impact, therefore working towards meeting the State’s VMT reduction goals. Bike/Ped Impacts In addition to the proposed stop signs, Caltrans suggests the applicant consider low posted speed limits, improved sight distance, speed humps, a posted stop or yield sign, or audible warnings for exiting vehicles to minimize conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists at the below-grade parking exit. Utilities Any utilities that are proposed, moved or modified within Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (ROW) shall be discussed. If utilities are impacted by the project, provide site plans that show the location of existing and/or proposed utilities. These modifications require a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. Lead Agency As the Lead Agency, the City of South San Francisco is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the State Transportation Network (STN). The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. Equitable Access If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users. Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner February 16, 2022 Page 3 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating Caltrans’ ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement. Your application package may be emailed to D4Permits@dot.ca.gov. Please note that Caltrans is in the process of implementing an online, automated, and milestone-based Caltrans Encroachment Permit System (CEPS) to replace the current permit application submittal process with a fully electronic system, including online payments. The new system is expected to be available during 2022. To obtain information about the most current encroachment permit process and to download the permit application, please visit https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic- operations/ep/applications. Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email LDR-D4@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, MARK LEONG District Branch Chief Local Development Review c: State Clearinghouse From: Unangst, Nathan@DTSC <Nathan.Unangst@dtsc.ca.gov> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 3:33 PM To: Espiritu, Christopher <Christopher.Espiritu@ssf.net> Cc: Walsh, Kimberly@DTSC <Kimberly.Walsh@dtsc.ca.gov>; Hill, Candace@DTSC <Candace.Hill@dtsc.ca.gov> Subject: 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - DTSC Comments Hello Chris, The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)(State Clearinghouse Number 2022010277). DTSC submits the following comments on the IS/MND: 1. Project Information, Project Entitlements, page 2. The DTSC requests the following edits to the text on page 2 (bolded, italicized, and underlined text denotes requested changes): a. “The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is the lead regulatory agency for remediation of the project site. A California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act Agreement was executed between the applicant and DTSC on January 23, 2020 which outlines requirements for redevelopment of the site to facilitate the assessment and remediation of the Site. A Response Plan is required to be approved by DTSC prior to the start of construction activities at the site, which will detail the required remediation activities. A Certificate of Completion would be issued by DTSC once actions are completed at the site to their satisfaction upon determining that all response actions have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Response Plan. 2. Project Information, Project Location and Existing Uses, Page 3; Mitigated Negative Declaration, Potentially Significant Impacts Requiring Mitigation, Page 18, and 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, b,d) Hazardous Materials Site and Accidental Release, page 49. The text in these sections state that the main contamination of concern is “low levels of lead and other metals in the soil”. Cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc are present at the site with concentrations greater than their Class I hazardous waste criteria. Please revise the text to remove the term “low levels”. 3. Project Information, Project Location and Existing Uses, Page 3. The text states that there are two currently applicable covenants in place for the property. DTSC requests that copies of these two covenants be provided for the Department’s future reference. 4. 3. Air Quality, pages 28-34, 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, pages 45-47, and 17. Transportation, c) Traffic Hazards, pages 70-71. To date, the estimate in the Draft Response Plan for the Site is that approximately 11,000 cubic yards of soil will be removed. Did the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation Sections include an analysis of the approximate number of truck trips required to remove the contaminated soil? 5. 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, b,d) Hazardous Materials Site and Accidental Release, page 49. The text on page 49 discusses the known contamination in soil and groundwater at the Site. However, the text does not discuss the known contamination in soil vapor. DTSC requests that the text be revised to include a bullet point discussing the known soil vapor impacts. Additionally, the docket number for the CLRRA Agreement presented on page 49 is incorrect. The correct number is HSA-FY19/20-013. 6. 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, b,d) Hazardous Materials Site and Accidental Release, page 49. DTSC requests the following edits to the text on page 49 (bolded, italicized, and underlined text denotes requested changes): a. “A Response Plan is required to be approved by DTSC pursuant to CLRRA prior to the start of construction activities at the site, which will detail remediation activities. The applicant anticipates this will include excavation and proper handling and disposal of contaminated site soils as part of project development, then appropriate mitigation of any remaining materials. At this date, the Draft Response Plan is undergoing review by DTSC and approximately 11,000 cubic yards of soil has been proposed for excavation and offsite disposal.” 7. 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mitigation Measure Haz-1, page 50. DTSC requests the following edits to the text on page 49 (bolded, italicized, and underlined text denotes requested changes): a. “During excavation activities, air monitoring and dust control measures will be implemented.” b. “Dust control measures will include: Community air monitoring.” If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (510) 540-3760 or via email at Nathan.Unangst@dtsc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Nathan Unangst (he/him/his) Engineering Geologist Site Mitigation and Restoration Program 510-540-3760 Nathan.Unangst@dtsc.ca.gov Department of Toxic Substances Control 700 Heinz Avenue, Berkeley, California 94710-2721 California Environmental Protection Agency Initial Study/MND     INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 580 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 JANUARY 2022 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 ..................................................................................................... 15  Lead Agency Determination .......................................................................................................... 22  Initial Study Checklist ..................................................................................................................... 23  Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................... 23  Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................... 23  Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................ 24  Agricultural and Forest Resources .......................................................................................... 27  Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ 28  Biological Resources ................................................................................................................ 35  Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 38  Energy ...................................................................................................................................... 40  Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 41  Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................... 45  Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 48   Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................. 54  Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................ 59  Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................... 61  Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 52  Population and Housing .......................................................................................................... 64  Public Services ......................................................................................................................... 65  Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 66  Transportation ......................................................................................................................... 67  Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 72  Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................... 73  Wildfire .................................................................................................................................... 76  Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................ 77   Document Preparers ...................................................................................................................... 78  Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 78      ii   page TABLES Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction ................................................... 30  Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations ............................................................... 32  Table 3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................ 46  FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location .................................................................................................................. 7  Figure 2: Visual Model ....................................................................................................................... 8  Figure 3: Site Plan .............................................................................................................................. 9  Figure 4: Grading and Drainage Plan ............................................................................................... 10  Figure 5: Building Sections .............................................................................................................. 11  Figure 6: Elevation, West ................................................................................................................. 12  Figure 7: Elevation, North ................................................................................................................ 13  ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:   Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment  Attachment B:   Cultural Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission Response   Attachment C:    California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act (CLRRA) Agreement  Attachment D:   Transportation Analysis         580 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 580 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 application 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 94080  Phone: 650‐877‐8535  Email: Christopher.Espiritu@ssf.net  PROJECT INFORMATION All figures for the project information are included together on pages 7 through 13.  PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS Development of the project would require the following approvals from the City of South San Francisco:  General Plan Amendment (land use map and text amendments), East of 101 Area Plan Amendment,  Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendment (land use map and text amendments), Zoning Map  Page 2    580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND   Amendments, Conditional Use Permits (Parking Reduction, Floor Area Ratio Increase), Design Review,  and a Transportation Demand Management Plan.  Because the project is located in the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan  area, the project would be subject to Airport Land Use Commission consistency review.  The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is the lead regulatory agency for  remediation of the project site. A California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act Agreement was executed  between the applicant and DTSC on January 23, 2020, which outlines requirements for redevelopment  of the site. A Response Plan is required to be approved by DTSC prior to the start of construction  activities at the site, which will detail remediation activities. A Certificate of Completion would be issued  by DTSC once actions are completed at the site to their satisfaction.  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 94080  CONTACT PERSON Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner  City of South San Francisco  Economic & Community Development Department   315 Maple Avenue  South San Francisco, CA 94080  Phone: 650‐877‐8535  Email: Christopher.Espiritu@ssf.net  PROJECT SPONSOR South City Ventures, LLC  Contact: Marin Gertler, VP of Development, IQHQ  674 Via De La Valle Suite 206, Solana Beach, CA 92075  Phone: 1‐858‐779‐1111   PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING USES The 1.89‐acre project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015‐021‐998) is located in the City of South San  Francisco, California at the southern end of Dubuque Avenue, north of the Grand Avenue overpass as it  intersects with U.S. 101. It is bordered by Dubuque Avenue and the U.S. 101 highway on the west, the  Caltrain right‐of‐way and South San Francisco Caltrain station property on the east and south, and  development and parking on the 720 Dubuque Avenue parcel to the north. Figure 1 shows the project  location.  The project site is located adjacent to the Caltrain station and within walking distance of the downtown  area (approximately 0.25 miles away), which offers an array of multi‐family residential, dining, and retail  activities centered along Grand Avenue. SamTrans provides bus service on the west side of U.S. 101,  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 3  with bus stops located approximately 0.25 miles from the project site, and commute.org provides  shuttle service from the Caltrain station to/from the BART and WETA ferry station.   The site is within the boundaries of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP). However, it was  not specifically contemplated for development in the DSASP as it was in use as part of the Caltrain  station property at the time, prior to the station relocation and upgrade. The site is also within the  boundaries of the current East of 101 Area Plan (1994) and South San Francisco General Plan (1999);  however these plans will be superseded by the General Plan 2040 update currently underway. The  applicant has been coordinating with the City related to the General Plan update efforts and the project  is intended to be consistent with the General Plan 2040 update.   As a part of the Caltrain station relocation and upgrade, the project site was recently used for  construction staging. All former site improvements have been previously removed from the site and the  project site is currently vacant and fenced.   The site is relatively level, with varying elevations above mean sea level of approximately 17 to 17.5 feet.  The depth to groundwater is approximately 7 feet below ground surface and the groundwater flow  direction is to the southeast, generally toward the San Francisco Bay.  The site is impacted by contamination from historic and adjacent uses, mostly due to historic railroad  use of the site and undocumented fill. The main contamination of concern is mainly low levels of lead  and other metals in the soil. Removal of impacted soil is proposed as part of the project as further  discussed in Section 9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials.  There are currently two applicable covenants in place: a Covenant Restricting Residential Use, which  specifies that the lot cannot be developed to include residential, lodging, hospitals, child and elderly  care facilities, schools, or recreational uses, and a Railroad Proximity Covenant, acknowledging that  there are significant rail yard operations at adjacent sites that result in noise, vibrations, emissions, and  other disturbances.  GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION / ZONING Current General Plan (1999) Designation: Business Commercial   Proposed General Plan (1999) Designation: Transit Office/R&D Core  Preliminary General Plan 2040 Designation: East of 101 Transit Core1  Current Zoning: Freeway Commercial (FC)  Proposed Zoning: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District; Transit Office/R&D Core (TO/RD)  Subdistrict SURROUNDING LAND USES The project site is located proximate to multiple transportation infrastructure elements, including the  Caltrain station property to the east and south, raised Grand Avenue overpass to the south, and U.S. 101  to the west. The only adjacent non‐transportation infrastructure use is the adjacent property to the  north at 720 Dubuque Avenue, which includes a restaurant, parking lots, and a large vacant warehouse  building (formerly Lowes). The project site is at the western edge of the East of 101 area, which is a large                                                               1 As identified in the Preferred Land Use Scenario (PLUS) under consideration by the City as of December 2021.    Page 4    580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND   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 freeway and residential neighborhoods beyond.   PROJECT DESCRIPTION Overview and Building Massing   The proposed project would involve construction of a new approximately 295,000‐square‐foot,2 8‐story,  office / research and development (R&D) building with a maximum height of approximately 155 feet  from the ground surface (approximate elevation of 18.5 feet above mean sea level) to the highest  rooftop element. Project site improvements would also include sidewalks, landscaping, and lighting  along Dubuque Avenue. Ground floor amenities would include a fitness center, conference space and a  café with an adjacent outdoor terrace near the building’s entry lobby. The applicant is targeting life  science tenants and designing for an employment density of 1 employee per 350 gross square feet. At  this rate, 842 employees would be anticipated.   According to the project application, the project design is intended “to bring high‐quality architectural  design and significant public realm improvements to reimagine the project site and the surrounding area  as a destination accessible by foot, bicycle, or public transit… [T]he building’s aim is to act as a landmark  structure signifying the strength of biotechnology development in the area and reclamation of a  postindustrial landscape.”  The building would be recessed at ground level, with stepped massing that pushes the building mass  towards the eastern property line of the site. The ground floor would include full height storefront  windows to showcase amenities (a fitness center, conference space, and a café space) with an adjacent  outdoor terrace that will create public gathering spaces along the building's northwesterly‐facing entry  lobby. A two‐story podium level above the entrance would scale down the mass at the pedestrian  entrance and above that level the massing steps and shifts to create a terrace space on level 4. There  would also be two notched terraces at the top levels. The building’s façade would be a mix of glass,  glazing, and solid metal panels. Perforated fins would be used for further visual interest.   The project is designed to achieve LEED Gold Certification, exceeding the baseline requirements of the  California Green Building Code.  Additionally, the project will include a robust Transportation Demand  Management Plan to achieve 40%3 alternative mode use.     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 immediately adjacent to 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 1.8 and 2.5 miles from the San Bruno and South San Francisco BART Stations  respectively, which are served by BART’s Red and Yellow Lines.                                                                 2 All references to square footage, height, and distance are approximate unless otherwise noted.    3 Note that while a 40% reduction is proposed, this analysis conservatively analyzed a lower 35% reduction. A 40% reduction  would result in fewer trips and related potential for impacts and is fully covered by this analysis.    580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 5  Bus: The project site is located approximately 0.3 miles from the Airport/East Grand Ave SamTrans bus  stop and approximately 0.4 miles from the Airport/Baden bus stop, serviced by the 292 and 397 bus  lines. It is also located within 0.5 miles of the Linden Ave/Miller Ave bus stop, serviced by the 130 and  141 bus lines.    Automobile/Truck: Project site access is provided via a shared driveway with the Caltrain station from  Dubuque Avenue along the western edge of the project site, with drop‐offs at the northern portion of  the site and vehicular access to the parking garage (and truck access) at the southern side.     Bicycle and Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian and bicycle access to the project site is currently limited.  There are no existing pedestrian sidewalks or bike lanes along the shared driveway. The applicant would  coordinate with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), which operates Caltrain and currently  owns the parcels to the south and east of the project site, to provide pedestrian access between the  project site and the Caltrain station.    Structured parking would be provided in 4 stories below grade, with approximately 350 parking spaces  to serve the office/R&D tenant. No parking is required under City of South San Francisco Municipal Code  for the café use based on its size.  The project includes installation of stop signs and directional signage at internal intersections and at the  shared driveway intersection with Dubuque Avenue as shown on project plans.  Utilities  The project site is located within existing utility service areas and utilities are generally available in  surrounding roadways and properties. (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 improve the existing Cal Water main in Dubuque Avenue including  upsizing approximately 1,000 linear feet of the current 6‐inch and 8‐inch ductile iron water main  within Dubuque Avenue to 12‐inch ductile iron pipe. Cal Water would provide the design for the  upsizing project and would perform all of the off‐site work up to the proposed meter.   The nearest publicly owned sewer system, which is owned and maintained by the city, is located  on the private parcel to the north of the project. The project would construct a 6‐inch sanitary  sewer line within an existing easement on the neighboring property.    The project would require coordination with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to extend power  from the pole approximately 100 feet north of the project site on Dubuque Avenue or to install  a new joint pole at the project site frontage. The project would also require coordination with  PG&E for an extension of the high pressure main for natural gas, as the nearest gas distribution  main is located approximately 230 feet north of the project frontage. Although the project will  include a stubbed connection to the natural gas main, it is designed to operate with 100%  electric energy.    Page 6    580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND   Construction   Project construction activities are anticipated to span approximately 2 years with a target start in early  2022 or later. 4 Site preparation and foundation work would run approximately the first 9 months,  followed by building construction over about 12 months and finishing/paving/landscaping over about 3  months. A total of about 325 workers are anticipated to be onsite throughout the construction process.  Once leased, tenant improvements would follow to the interior of the building and are likely to take an  additional approximately 3 months or more. The building is expected to be operational as early as  mid‐2024.   The project would involve removal of contaminated soil and excavation for subsurface parking  extending to depths of up to about 60 feet below ground surface. Construction dewatering would be  necessary during excavation as further discussed in Section 7: Geology and soils and Section 10:  Hydrology and Water Quality.                                                               4 While this analysis was performed with an assumption of a construction start in early 2022, if construction is initiated later,  impacts would be the same or lessened (due to increasing emissions controls) from those analyzed here.    580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 7                 Figure 1: Project Location Source: Project Plan Set, dated July 16, 2021     Page 8 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND                       Figure 2: Visual Model Source: Project Plan Set, dated July 16, 2021     580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 9              Figure 3: Site Plan  Source: Project Plan Set, dated July 16, 2021     Page 10 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND               Figure 4: Grading and Drainage Plan  Source: Project Plan Set, dated July 16, 2021 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND                                              Figure 5: Building Sections   Source: Project Plan Set, dated July 16, 2021  Page 12 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND                                  Figure 6: Elevations, West   Source: Project Plan Set, dated July 16, 2021     580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 13                       Figure 7: Elevations, North   Source: Project Plan Set, dated July 16, 2021     Page 14 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND                    This page was intentionally left blank Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 15  MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND SETTING This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the 580 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 of the project would result in emissions and  fugitive dust. While the project emissions would be below 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.    Mitigation Measure   Air‐1:  Basic Construction Management Practices. The project shall  demonstrate proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and  operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading  permits, including implementation of the following BAAQMD “Basic  Construction Mitigation Measures”:  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  track‐out  onto  adjacent  public  roads  shall  be  removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day,  unless the City Engineer determines that an alternative cleaning method  would achieve the same standard of air pollution prevention and also  reduce the potential for stormwater pollution.   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.  vi) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when  not  in  use  or  reducing  the  maximum  idling  time  to  5  minutes  (as  required  by  the  California  airborne  toxics  control  measure  Title  13,  Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall  be provided for construction workers at all access points.  Administrative Draft Page 16  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  Potential Impact  Mitigation Measures  vii) 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.  viii) 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 Air District’s  phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable  regulations.  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 ensure no significant impacts occur with respect to  these species 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. or California Fish and Wildlife  Services (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 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 Resources Impact: There are no known cultural resources at the site. However, given the  moderate to high potential for unrecorded archeological resources and proposed disturbance of  native soils which also have the potential to contain paleontological resources, mitigation measures  Cul‐1 through Cul‐4 shall be implemented to address the potential for unexpected discovery of such  resources.  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 17  Potential Impact  Mitigation Measures   Mitigation Measures  Cul‐1: Sampling and/or Monitoring Plan. Prior to ground disturbance, a  qualified archaeologist shall draft project specific recommendations for  sampling and/or monitoring for subsurface paleontological, archaeological,  and/or tribal resources during excavation as determined necessary based on  cords searches and previous studies of the site.  Next steps could include  additional exploration prior to construction, monitoring of site disturbance  by a qualified professional, or no additional action other than that specified  in Cul‐2, Cul‐3, and Cul‐4. The plan and supporting reasoning shall be  submitted to the City of South San Francisco for approval and the applicant  shall be responsible for implementing the plan and any follow‐up actions  determined to be necessary.  Cul‐2: 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 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.   Cul‐3: 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 are 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‐4: 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 and, if the remains are Native American, 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. Construction activities require substantial excavation and dewatering. To mitigate  the potential for damage to structures or people, Mitigation Measure Geo‐1 shall be implemented.  Administrative Draft Page 18  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  Potential Impact  Mitigation Measures    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 contamination from historic and adjacent uses, mostly  due to historic railroad use of the site and undocumented fill. The main contamination of concern is  mainly low levels of lead and other metals in the soil. Removal and mitigation of impacted soil is  proposed as part of project construction activities and would be performed per requirements of the  regulatory agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, as outlined in Haz‐1.   Mitigation Measure  Haz‐1:  Response Plan Implementation and Completion. The applicant shall  coordinate with DTSC to implement a Response Plan pursuant to the  previously‐approved CLRRA Agreement (Docket No HSA‐FY19/20‐013) to  appropriately mitigate soil contamination. Evidence of plan approval by DTSC  shall be submitted to the City prior to initiation of earth‐moving at the site  and a Certificate of Completion (or other no further action documentation)  shall be submitted prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. While details will  be coordinated with DTSC, the following components are anticipated to be  included in the Response Plan:  1.  Soil Management. The proposed construction activities will disturb soil  during the excavation, site grading, construction of new foundations, and  installation of utility lines. During excavation activities, dust control measures  will be implemented. The soil management objectives for the site are to  control exposure of potentially hazardous constituents in soil to construction  workers, nearby residents and/or pedestrians, and future users of the site, all  implemented pursuant to the DTSC‐approved plan. The components of the  Response Plan will establish and maintain required health and safety  procedures to control worker and public exposure to site contaminants  during construction including but not necessarily limited to the elements  listed below.  2.  Dust Control. During handling of potentially contaminated soils, an enhanced  dust control plan with provisions to protect construction workers and the  public will be implemented through engineering controls, to control  generation of dust and resulting off‐site migration of contaminants in site  soil. Dust control measures will include:   •  Covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting.   •  Watering uncovered ground surface at the site to prevent visible dust  from becoming air‐borne.   Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 19  Potential Impact  Mitigation Measures  •  Misting or spraying of soil as required during excavation and loading.   •  Placement of gravel and/or rubble plates on unpaved site access roads as  feasible.   •  Covering of trucks hauling contaminated soil from the site with a  tarpaulin or other cover.   •  Reducing to as low as feasible the soil drop from an excavator’s bucket  onto soil piles or into transport trucks.   •  Deployment of windbreaks as necessary.   •  Posting on‐site vehicle speed limits.   •  Street sweeping of public streets as required when soils are visible.   •  Termination of excavation and loading activities if winds exceed 15 mph.   •  Addition of soil stabilizers and other responses as needed.  3.  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 prepared by a certified industrial  hygienist representing the contractor. The purpose of the Health and Safety  Plan is to provide field personnel with an understanding of the potential  chemical and physical hazards, protection of any off‐site receptors,  procedures for entering the project site, health and safety procedures, and  emergency response to hazards should they occur. All project personnel shall  undergo the identified health and safety training, and read and adhere to the  procedures established in the Health and Safety Plan. A copy of the Health  and Safety Plan shall be kept on site during field activities and reviewed and  updated as necessary.    The Health and Safety Plan will describe the 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 and groundwater.   4.  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.   5.  Groundwater Management. Construction dewatering is anticipated based on  development plans, however, per analytic results of groundwater sampling, it  is anticipated the groundwater from the site will be able to be discharged  into the sanitary sewer system with no additional treatment. While not  anticipated to be included as a required element of the Response Plan, 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. In the event of the presence of regulated levels of  contamination, measures will be taken to comply with applicable  Administrative Draft Page 20  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  Potential Impact  Mitigation Measures  requirements.  6.  Contingency Plans for Unknown/Unexpected Conditions. The following tasks  shall be implemented during excavation activities if unanticipated hazardous  materials are encountered. Such materials may include unaccounted for  underground storage tanks 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 site safety officer and site superintendent.   •  Have an appropriate professional conduct a site inspection and determine  appropriate follow‐up actions, which would include appropriate handling  and removal of the identified hazard.  •  Review the existing health and safety plan for revisions, if necessary, and  have appropriately trained personnel on‐site to work with the affected  materials as required by applicable requirements.   Traffic Hazard Impact: Under existing conditions, the curved alignment of Dubuque Avenue combined  with the existing fence/retaining wall impacts the visibility of northbound traffic for drivers exiting  onto Dubuque Avenue from the shared project and Caltrain station parking lot driveway.  Additionally, signs attached to the fence and vegetation at the corner of the property to the north  obstruct sight distance between southbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the  shared project and Caltrain driveway under existing conditions. Because the proposed project  would add traffic to the existing driveway on Dubuque Avenue, the project would exacerbate an  existing traffic hazard, resulting in a potentially significant safety impact. Implementation of the  safety improvements identified in Mitigation Measure Trans‐1 would result in adequate sight  distance at this intersection.    Mitigation Measure  Trans‐1: Shared Dubuque Avenue Driveway Safety Improvements. The  applicant shall coordinate the following safety improvements for the  intersection of Dubuque Avenue and the shared Caltrain / project driveway  to provide adequate sight distance between northbound Dubuque Avenue  traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway.   a)  The applicant shall coordinate with the City to decrease the speed limit  on Dubuque Avenue to 25 mph.  b)  The applicant shall coordinate with the City to reduce the height of the  fence along the retaining wall on Dubuque Avenue to the south of the  project site to improve visibility of approaching northbound traffic.    Additionally, the applicant shall coordinate with the City and adjacent  properties as reasonably feasible to address existing sight distance  obstructions at the intersection of Dubuque Avenue and the shared Caltrain /  project driveway as follows:  c)  Coordinate with Caltrain to relocate or reduce the height of the existing  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 21  Potential Impact  Mitigation Measures  “Caltrain Station Parking” sign located on the south side of the shared  Dubuque Avenue driveway to provide adequate sight distance between  northbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared  Dubuque Avenue driveway.  d)  Coordinate with the property owner to the north to clear obstructing  signs from the fence and vegetation from the corner of their property to  provide adequate sight distance between southbound Dubuque Avenue  traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway.  Tribal Cultural Resources Impact: There are no recorded tribal cultural resources at the site.  However, given the moderate to high potential for unrecorded Native American resources,  mitigation measures Cul‐1 through Cul‐4, above, shall be implemented to address the potential for  unexpected discovery of such resources.    Mitigation Measures  Cul‐1 through Cul‐4, detailed above.    Administrative Draft Page 22  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  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.           Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 23  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.     Administrative Draft Page 24  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  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.  The proposed project meets all three of the above criteria because the project (1) is in a transit priority  area due to the location adjacent to the South San Francisco Caltrain (rail) Station;5 (2) is on an infill site                                                               5   Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, Transit Priority Area, accessed at:  https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=370de9dc4d65402d992a769bf6ac8ef5  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 25  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 3.19. 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. The East of 101 Area Plan (Policy 5.3)  states that a design goal of development in the Plan Area should be to “Protect visually significant  features of the East of 101 Area, including views of the Bay and San Bruno Mountain.”6 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.  Obstruction of private views is 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 with respect  to aesthetics. 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.7 The project would not be visible from a  designated or eligible State Scenic Highway. 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.                                                               6   East of 101 Area Plan, July 1994, p. 13  7  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   Administrative Draft Page 26  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  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 seeking a Zoning Map amendment to allow for office/R&D as part of the Transit  Office/R&D Core (TO/RD) subdistrict rather than the uses currently allowed (regional‐serving retail  uses, commercial lodging, visitor services and similar uses that benefit from proximity to the U.S  101). 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 the CEQA  Guidelines have determined this type of project would not have a significant impact with respect  to aesthetics. This informational discussion agrees with the statutory conclusion that the project  impact would not be significant. Additionally, the City will 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 street lights. Light and glare is also  associated with vehicular traffic along major thoroughfares in the area. 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  the CEQA Guidelines have determined this type of project would not have a significant impact  with respect to aesthetics. This informational discussion agrees with the statutory conclusion that  the project impact would not be significant.     Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 27  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.8 There would be no impact to agricultural and forestry resources as a result of  this project.                                                                    8   City of South San Francisco prepared by Atkins, October 2014, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan  Environmental Impact Report (SCH no. 2013102001), p. 5‐1.  Administrative Draft Page 28  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  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)  Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or  projected air quality violation?     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 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared for this  analysis by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. and dated November 19, 2021, 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.)    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  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 29  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).  Additionally, the  project 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 project, therefore, would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan and have a less than significant  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  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.9  BAAQMD updated its Guidelines for air quality analysis in coordination with adoption of new  thresholds of significance on June 2, 2010.10 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,                                                               9 BAAQMD, May 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p. 2‐1.  10 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_10 0602.ashx .   Administrative Draft Page 30  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  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 project 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  Reactive  Organic  Gases  Nitrogen   Oxides  Particulate   Matter (PM10)*  Fine Particulate  Matter (PM2.5) *  Maximum Average Daily  Emissions  16.67  24.91  1.23  1.03  BAAQMD Daily Thresholds  54  54  82  54  Exceeds Threshold?  No  No  No  No  * Applies to exhaust emissions only  Source: Illingworth & Rodkin 2021, Table 4 in Attachment A.  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 Mitigation Measure Air‐1, below and would further reduce construction‐period criteria pollutant  impacts.   Mitigation Measure  Air‐1:  Basic Construction Management Practices. The project applicant / owner / sponsor  shall demonstrate proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and  operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits,  including implementation of the following BAAQMD “Basic Construction Mitigation  Measures”:  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 track‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed  using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, unless the City  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 31  Engineer determines that an alternative cleaning method would achieve the  same standard of air pollution prevention and also reduce the potential for  stormwater pollution.   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.  vi) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use  or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California  airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of  Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at  all access points.  vii) 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.  viii) 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. Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s  24‐hour general air pollution complaint phone number shall also be visible to  ensure compliance with applicable regulations.    With implementation of Mitigation Measure Air‐1, 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, including mobile sources (e.g. employee vehicle trips) and  stationary sources (e.g. emergency generators), 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.   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.  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.   Administrative Draft Page 32  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations (Pounds per Day for Daily, Tons per Year  for Annual)  Description  Reactive  Organic Gases  Nitrogen  Oxides  Particulate   Matter (PM10)  Fine Particulate  Matter (PM2.5)  Project Emissions, Daily 12.81  8.74  7.80  2.18  BAAQMD Daily   Significance Thresholds  54  54  82  54  Exceeds Daily Threshold?  No  No  No  No  Project Emissions, Annual  2.34  1.60  1.42  0.40  BAAQMD Annual   Significance Thresholds  10  10  15  10  Exceeds Annual Threshold?  No  No  No  No  Source: CalEEMod results included as Attachment A. Average daily emissions were calculated by converting from tons per  year to pounds/days.    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.11 The project would implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan 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 hour and the project  would only generate up to 222 peak hour trips (see section 17: Transportation). The project’s  underground parking garage would serve only project vehicles with expected parking for 350  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.                                                               11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p. 3‐2, 3‐3.  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 33  According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the project site is not in an impacted community.12  Substantial sources of TACs include, but are not limited to, land uses such as freeways 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.  The generation of these  emissions would be temporary and confined to the construction‐period.   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. 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.  BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds for the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed project on  exposure of sensitive receptors to risks and hazards, are a project‐specific cancer risk exceeding 10  in one million, a non‐cancer risk exceeds a Hazard Index of 1.0 (or cumulative risk of 100 in one  million or a Hazard Index of 10.0 respectively is exceeded), and/or the annual average PM2.5  concentration would exceed 0.3 µg/m3 (or 0.8 µg/m3 cumulatively). Examples of sensitive receptors  are places where people live, play or convalesce and include schools, hospitals, residential areas and  recreation facilities.   A construction‐period Community Health Risk Assessment was performed (included in Attachment  A), which used the recommended EPA dispersion model AERMOD to determine the potential health  risks related to diesel exhaust from construction equipment.   Based on this modeling, for the maximally exposed individual, the increased 30‐year inhalation  cancer risk from construction activities would be 8.4 in 1 million (compared to a threshold of 10.0 in  1 million), the maximum chronic hazard index would be <0.01 (compared to a threshold of 1.00) and  the annual average PM2.5 concentration would be 0.06 µg/m3 (compared to the threshold of 0.30  µg/m3). Construction‐period project health risks to off‐site sensitive receptors would not exceed  threshold levels.   Operational health risks from the project would include project traffic and the proposed diesel  emergency generator. For the maximally exposed individual, the increased 30‐year inhalation cancer  risk from operational activities would be 0.47 in 1 million (compared to a threshold of 10 in 1  million), the maximum chronic hazard index would be <0.01 (compared to a threshold of 1) and the  annual average PM2.5 concentration would be <0.01 µg/m3 (compared to the threshold of 0.30  µg/m3). Operational‐period project health risks to off‐site sensitive receptors would not exceed  threshold levels.   Cumulative sources of health risk in the area also include area construction, high‐volume roadways,  and stationary sources such as diesel generators, boilers, auto body shops, and gas stations. For the                                                               12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Figure 5‐1.  Administrative Draft Page 34  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  maximum exposed individual, the total combined cumulative inhalation cancer risk would be 48.09  in 1 million (compared to a threshold of 100 in 1 million), the maximum chronic hazard index would  be <0.14 (compared to a threshold of 10) and the annual average PM2.5 concentration would be 0.73  µg/m3 (compared to the threshold of 0.80 µg/m3). Cumulative health risks to off‐site sensitive  receptors would not exceed threshold levels.   Exposure risks for the maximally exposed individual are below threshold levels; therefore, the  impact related to exposure to sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be  less than significant.  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 East of 101 area and is not a use  type considered by BAAQMD to be a source of substantial objectionable odors.13 Therefore, the  potential for objectionable odor impacts to adversely affect a substantial number of people is less  than significant.                                                                      13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Table 3‐3.  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 35  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 is maintained as a vacant site, surrounded by urbanized uses, that has recently  been used as a construction staging area for Caltrain improvements and can generally be  described as an unpaved dirt lot with little to no vegetation. While no trees are planted on the  project site, there is a row of trees on the adjoining property, adjacent to the property line to the  north. (Consistency with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance is discussed under topic “e”  below.)    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. The project site does not include structures or trees that could host bat roosts.   Other than the potential for nesting birds discussed below, the only areas with the potential for  significant biological resources in the DSASP area are along Colma Creek and the Bay fringe,  neither of which describe the project site.14                                                                 14   City of South San Francisco prepared by Atkins, October 2014, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan  Environmental Impact Report (SCH no. 2013102001), p. 5‐1.  Administrative Draft Page 36  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    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. While there are no trees or structures on  the site, project construction activities have the potential to impact nests 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. or California  Fish and Wildlife Services (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 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.   b, c)   Riparian Habitat and Wetlands    No wetlands, riparian habitats, or other sensitive habitats are present at the site.15, 16   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                                                               15   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. Available at  https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. Accessed November 2021.  16   City of South San Francisco prepared by Atkins, October 2014, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan  Environmental Impact Report (SCH no. 2013102001), p. 5‐1.  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 37  nursery site. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to wildlife nursery sites or  movement.  e)  Local Policies and Ordinances  No tree removal is proposed with the project as there are no trees on site. There is a row of trees  on the adjoining property at the northern property line of the project site, however, the proposed  structure is set back about 94 feet from that property line, so sub‐floor building excavation and  building construction is unlikely have the potential to impact those trees. The applicant is required  to comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Title 13, Chapter 13.30 of the City’s  Municipal Code) if determined applicable for protection of the trees at the property line.  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.     Administrative Draft Page 38  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  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 is located adjacent to, and may contain part of, one historic  structure, the South San Francisco Freight Spur and Loading Platform. However, the site is  currently vacant and does not contain this historic‐age structure. It was removed by the Joint  Powers Board prior to the initiation of this project. 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 indicated that while there are  no recorded cultural resources present in the project area, there is a moderate to 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 recorded sacred lands present in the vicinity of the site (see  Attachment B). While no tribes have requested consultation for projects in this area, notice was  sent to the provided list of seven local tribes on October 29, 2021, per recommendation of the  Native American Heritage Commission (see Attachment B). No requests for consultation were  received.    Although previous studies included field surveys of the project site, significant excavation and  below‐grade levels are proposed, which will disturb previously‐undisturbed soils well below the  field survey levels. Construction activities associated with the project would include excavation  extending 48 to 60 feet below the surface in the area of the parking garage. Given the moderately  high potential for unrecorded archeological resources and Native American resources, the  following mitigation measures Cul‐1, through Cul‐4 shall be implemented.   Mitigation Measures  Cul‐1: Sampling and/or Monitoring Plan. Prior to ground disturbance, a qualified archaeologist  shall draft project specific recommendations for sampling and/or monitoring for subsurface  paleontological, archaeological, and/or tribal resources during excavation as determined  necessary based on cords searches and previous studies of the site.  Next steps could  include additional exploration prior to construction, monitoring of site disturbance by a  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 39  qualified professional, or no additional action other than that specified in Cul‐2, Cul‐3, and  Cul‐4. The plan and supporting reasoning shall be submitted to the City of South San  Francisco for approval and the applicant shall be responsible for implementing the plan and  any follow‐up actions determined to be necessary.  Cul‐2: 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 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.   Cul‐3: 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 are 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‐4: 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 and, if the remains  are Native American, in accordance with section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources  Code.    Implementation of Mitigation Measures Cul‐1, Cul‐2, Cul‐3, and Cul‐4 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.     Administrative Draft Page 40  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  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 use energy in various ways, including directly to power the building, heating and  cooling, and also to power vehicles. Construction and routine operation and maintenance also  consume energy. Additionally, there is indirect energy consumption related to the production and  distribution of energy and other utilities and transportation and disposal of waste. That being said,  there is no quantified threshold for energy consumption against which to compare a quantified  amount of energy use. Rather, the threshold hinges on whether the energy consumption would be  wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.   As detailed in section 17: Transportation, as an infill project located adjacent to the Caltrain station  (a regional rail system), the project is considered to result in low 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.  This would be supported through implementation of  a Transportation Demand Management Plan to reduce employee trips, which is proposed to meet  and exceed City transportation demand reduction code requirements.  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, as currently applicable. 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  Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the California Green Building Standards Code  (CALGREEN), as applicable, aimed at the incorporation of energy‐conserving design and  construction, and would exceed these requirements through achieving LEED Gold Certification.  While representing a change from the former train‐related use, the project is consistent with the  type of office/R&D development in the area and allowed under the proposed land use designation  and zoning.  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.    Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 41  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 applicant by  Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, dated November 15, 2021, and the Draft  Dewatering Assessment also prepared by Langan and dated May 7, 2021, both of which are  available as part of project application materials.  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 3.2 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.     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).   Administrative Draft Page 42  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    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 and the presence of loose, undocumented fill. Geotechnical considerations include the  need to provide adequate bearing for the building loads, design and installation of shoring to  support the basement excavation, 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. While  there are some liquefaction‐susceptible soils at the site, these are entirely within the depth of  proposed excavation and would therefore be removed from under the proposed building and would  not be represent a liquefaction risk to the proposed project. The same is true of near‐surface fill  consisting of loose to medium‐dense fill subject to cyclic densification and settlement during a  seismic event – these would also be removed from the footprint during excavation. If any at‐grade  portions of the building are necessary, these could be supported with deep foundations as  appropriate to address these concerns. Outside the building basement footprint, seismic settlement  of up to 3 inches could occur, which would require appropriate design of utilities and pavements.      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.   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. While the project site is already generally flat, due to proposed soil remediation measures to  address contamination, approximately 5 to 9 feet of soil would be removed across 60% of the site  with disposal of the contaminated soil off site. 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.     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  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 43  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 and therefore not needed to be implemented as mitigation ‐ the soil erosion  impacts of the project would be less than significant.  c, d)   Unstable or Expansive Soil    As discussed under topic “a” above, the soils at the project site and in the surrounding areas contain  loose, undocumented fill requiring geotechnical considerations related to the need to provide  adequate bearing for the building loads, design and installation of shoring to support the basement  excavation, and construction considerations. 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 and the absence of any nearby steep slopes. The Geotechnical Investigation did not  identify the potential for expansive soils at the site.    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 a 3.3‐foot thick continuous deep soil mixing  (DSM) wall 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. When combined with tiebacks and/or internal bracing as proposed, DSM  walls can also result in greater lateral support to prevent caving or deformations due to pressures  from nearby soils and structures. 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 1.2 inches or less at 25 feet from the excavation and declining  farther from the site.      The Langan reports conclude that the potential geological hazards related to unstable or expansive  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 or  expansive soil or collapse.  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 or expansive soil  Administrative Draft Page 44  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  hazards including off‐site subsidence or collapse due to excavation and dewatering to a level of less  than significant with mitigation.  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 relatively level 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.17, 18    The project site falls within a highly urbanized area and the site is underlain by about 7 to 9 feet of  fill; however, the excavation for the parking garage would dig to a depth of up to about 60 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, Cul‐2, Cul‐3, and Cul‐4 would also reduce the potential impact related  to unknown paleontological resources.  Implementation of mitigation measures Cul‐1, Cul‐2, Cul‐3, and Cul‐4 would reduce the impacts  associated with possible disturbance of previously‐unidentified paleontological resources to less  than significant with mitigation.                                                                  17 South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.   18 University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Online Database. 2019. UCMP specimen search portal,  http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed November 2021).  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 45  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 November 19, 2021, included in full as Attachment A.  a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions   BAAQMD has 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.  The  threshold  of  significance  for  operational  GHGs  is  an  efficiency  threshold of 4.6 metric tons CO2e per service population (residents and employees) per year. If a  project is too small to meet the efficiency threshold, an overall emissions threshold of 1,100 metric  tons carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year may be used instead. Because this is not a small  project, the efficiency threshold will be used for this analysis.   State Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) required California state and local governments to reduce greenhouse  gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The BAAQMD thresholds were based on those 2020 targets.  State Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) was subsequently adopted to require that there be a further reduction in  GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030. BAAQMD has not yet updated its thresholds  to address future target reductions past 2020. While not yet adopted by BAAQMD, 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.   BAAQMD has not proposed a separate threshold of significance for construction‐related GHG  emissions, though recommends quantification and a determination regarding significance in relation  to meeting AB 32 (and now SB 32) goals. Standard practice is to divide the construction emissions by  40 years (an average building life) and add that to the operational emissions.  The project’s GHG emissions were modeled using CalEEMod, as discussed in section 3: Air Quality. A  summary of the results are included in Table 3 on the next page and the CalEEMod input and output  can be found in Attachment A and as detailed, the emissions quantification incorporated project  details, some of which serve to reduce GHG emissions including Transportation Demand  Management Plan trip reductions.  As shown in Table 3, GHG emissions would be below BAAQMD’s efficiency threshold based on 2020  reductions and also the projected 2030 efficiency threshold. Therefore, the project would have a  less‐than‐significant impact related to increased GHG emissions.   Administrative Draft Page 46  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  Table 3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions   Description  metric tons CO2e per year  Project Emissions, Operational  1,976  Project Emissions, Construction   (averaged over 40 years) 42  Project Emissions, Total  2,018  Project Service Population (employees)  842  Project Emissions, Total   (per Service Population) 2.4  BAAQMD Project Service Population   Significance Threshold 2020 4.6  Exceeds 2020 Threshold?  No  Projected Service Population   Significance Threshold 2030 2.8  Exceeds 2030 Threshold?  No  Source: Illingworth &Rodkin 2021, from Table 9 and surrounding text in Attachment A.   Notes: CO2e is carbon dioxide equivalent units, the standard measure of total greenhouse gasses.  Project emissions are reported for the intended operational year of 2025. Operation in later years, such as 2030, would  have lower emissions due to anticipated vehicular emissions controls.  Service Population was calculated at approximately 350 square feet per employee as the target employment density for  the project.   b)  Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans   The City adopted a GHG reduction plan in 2014, known as the City of South San Francisco Climate  Action Plan (“SSF CAP”). This plan estimated community‐wide GHG emissions of 548,600 metric tons  CO2e in 2005 and a target reduction of 15% below the 2005 baseline levels by 2020. Because the SSF  CAP only demonstrates consistency with the AB 32 near‐term reduction target for 2020, it is not a  “qualified” CAP available for CEQA streamlining for projects after 2020 and was therefore not used  in place of emissions quantification under this Section 8(a) above. However, until an updated CAP is  adopted, the current SSF CAP’s measures and development requirements still apply to projects  constructed and operated after 2020. Therefore, this analysis evaluates the proposed project’s  consistency with applicable measures and development requirements in the SSF CAP.  Many of the SSF CAP’s reduction measures are targeted to city‐wide strategies that are not directly  applicable to the proposed project. The project includes bicycle facilities and has pedestrian  connections to the South San Francisco Caltrain station and would participate in a Transportation  Demand Management Plan (contributing to SSF CAP Measures 1.1 through 1.3). The project includes  tree plantings (SSF CAP Measure 3.4), would meet current standards of energy and water efficiency  (SSF CAP Measures 3.1 and 6.1), and occupants would participate in recycling for waste reduction  (SSF CAP Measure 5.1). A discussion of the project’s consistency with the Clean Air Plan is included  in Section 3: Air Quality.   Additionally, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project were analyzed per the BAAQMD  Guidelines against thresholds based on 2020 target reductions and projected 2030 target  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 47  reductions. BAAQMD’s thresholds and methodologies take into account implementation of  state‐wide regulations and plans, such as the Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan and adopted state  regulations such as Pavley and the low carbon fuel standard. Systemic changes will be required at  the state level to achieve California’s future (post‐2020) GHG reduction goals. Regulations, such as  future amendments to the low‐carbon fuel standard, updates to the state’s Title 24 standards, and  implementation of the state’s Short‐Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, including  forthcoming regulations for composting and organics diversion, will be necessary to attain the  magnitude of reductions required for the state’s goals. The project would be required to comply  with applicable operational regulations or be directly affected by the outcomes (e.g., vehicle trips  and energy consumption would be less carbon intensive because of statewide compliance with  future low‐carbon fuel standard amendments and increasingly stringent Renewables Portfolio  Standards). Therefore, for the foreseeable future, the project would not conflict with any other  state‐level regulations pertaining to GHGs in the post‐2020 era. Additionally, as detailed under this  Section 8(a) above, project emissions would not exceed threshold levels, including projected 2030  threshold levels consistent with adopted state reduction targets.   Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact in relation to consistency with GHG  reduction plans.     Administrative Draft Page 48  580 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 Environmental Site Assessment and Site Characterization  Report prepared for the applicant by AllWest Environmental, dated March 23, 2017 and February 23,  2018 respectively, and the draft Soil and Groundwater Management Plan prepared by Langan  Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., dated January 15, 2021, which are available as part of  project application materials. There have been no substantial changes to the site related to Hazardous  Materials since preparation of these reports.   This section also relies on information from the January 2020 California Land Reuse and Revitalization  Act (CLRRA) Agreement between the applicant and DTSC, Docket No. HSA‐FY19/20‐013, included as  Attachment C to this document.  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. R&D laboratories additionally are likely to handle materials  considered to be biological hazards and/or chemical hazards. The San Mateo County Environmental  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 49  Health Division enforces regulations pertaining to safe handling and proper storage of hazardous  materials to prevent or reduce the potential for injury to 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 site is listed as a Voluntary Cleanup hazardous materials site for past contamination related to  historic use of the site by Union Pacific Railroad from approximately the 1940s and ceasing by the  early 1990s (DTSC’s Envirostor Site Code: 202240).     Contamination at historic railroad sites can come from hazardous materials used in the construction  of railroad tracks and associated structures; materials storage; chemicals that may have been used  for dust suppression and weed control along the rail lines including pesticides, herbicides,  petroleum hydrocarbons; and toxic preservatives that were used on the wooden rail ties.  Additionally, the project site contains undocumented fill, which can contain contaminants from  wherever the fill was sourced from.    Due to the known potential for contamination at the site, various tests of the groundwater and soils  have been performed at the site over the years, with the following conclusions:    Soils: The primary contaminants of concern in site soils were mainly low levels of metals,  including antimony, arsenic, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. The lead and copper  concentrations at some locations may qualify those soils as hazardous waste (Class 1 and Class  2). Additional soil contaminants were sampled that exceeded residential – but not commercial –  screening levels including petroleum hydrocarbons (fuels). Given the proposed non‐residential  development planned for the site, these are not further specified here. Arsenic and asbestos  were detected in the soil at levels consistent with background levels in natural soils in the area.    Groundwater: No contaminants were detected in the groundwater above commercial screening  levels for groundwater not used as a drinking water resource or for aquatic habitat. Limited  groundwater samples at the site identified benzene above residential – but not commercial –  direct exposure screening levels, so this is not further discussed for the proposed non‐residential  project. Some metals were detected at levels exceeding thresholds for aquatic habitats, but it  was determined these standards would not be applicable to the site given the distance from the  site to the nearest aquatic habitat along Colma Creek so they are not further discussed.    DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control) is the lead regulatory agency for  remediation of the project site. A CLRRA Agreement was executed between the applicant and DTSC  on January 23, 2020 (Docket No. HSA‐013), which outlines requirements for remediation of the site  pursuant to CLRRA (see Attachment C). A Response Plan is required to be approved by DTSC  pursuant to CLRRA prior to the start of construction activities at the site, which will detail  remediation activities. The applicant anticipates this will include excavation and proper handling and  disposal of contaminated site soils as part of project development, then appropriate mitigation of  any remaining materials. A Certificate of Completion would be issued by DTSC once actions are  completed at the site pursuant to CLRRA. While these actions are required per coordination with the  regulatory agency, DTSC, the following mitigation measure Haz‐1 shall be implemented to ensure  appropriate tracking of actions by the City.   Administrative Draft Page 50  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND   Mitigation Measure   Haz‐1: Response Plan Implementation and Completion. The applicant shall coordinate with  DTSC to implement a Response Plan pursuant to the previously‐approved CLRRA  Agreement (Docket No. HSA‐FY19/20‐013) to appropriately mitigate soil contamination.  Evidence of plan approval by DTSC shall be submitted to the City prior to initiation of  earth‐moving at the site and a Certificate of Completion (or other no further action  documentation) shall be submitted prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. While  details will be coordinated with DTSC, the following components  are anticipated to be  included in the Response Plan:  1. Soil Management. The proposed construction activities will disturb soil during the  excavation, site grading, construction of new foundations, and installation of utility  lines. During excavation activities, dust control measures will be implemented. The  soil management objectives for the site are to control exposure of potentially  hazardous constituents in soil to construction workers, nearby residents and/or  pedestrians, and future users of the site, all as implemented pursuant to the  DTSC‐approved plan. The components of the Response Plan will establish and  maintain required health and safety procedures to control worker and public  exposure to site contaminants during construction including but not necessarily  limited to the elements listed below.  2. Dust Control. During handling of potentially contaminated soils, an enhanced dust  control plan with provisions to protect construction workers and the public will be  implemented through implementation of engineering controls, to control  generation of dust and resulting off‐site migration of contaminants in site soil. Dust  control measures will include:    Covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting.    Watering uncovered ground surface at the site to prevent visible dust from  becoming air‐borne.    Misting or spraying of soil as required during excavation and loading.    Placement of gravel and/or rubble plates on unpaved site access roads as  feasible.    Covering of trucks hauling contaminated soil from the site with a tarpaulin or  other cover.    Reducing to as low as feasible the soil drop from an excavator’s bucket onto soil  piles or into transport trucks.    Deployment of windbreaks as necessary.    Posting on‐site vehicle speed limits.    Street sweeping of public streets as required when soils are visible.    Termination of excavation and loading activities if winds exceed 15 mph.    Addition of soil stabilizers and other responses as needed.  3. 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 prepared by a certified industrial hygienist representing the  contractor. The purpose of the Health and Safety Plan is to provide field personnel  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 51  with an understanding of the potential chemical and physical hazards, protection of  any off‐site receptors, procedures for entering the project site, health and safety  procedures, and emergency response to hazards should they occur. All project  personnel shall undergo the identified health and safety training, and read and  adhere to the procedures established in the Health and Safety Plan. A copy of the  Health and Safety Plan shall be kept on site during field activities and reviewed and  updated as necessary.  The Health and Safety Plan will describe the 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 and groundwater.   4. 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.   5. Groundwater Management. Construction dewatering is anticipated based on  development plans, however, per analytic results of groundwater sampling, it is  anticipated the groundwater from the site will be able to be discharged into the  sanitary sewer system with no additional treatment. While not anticipated to be  included as a required element of the Response Plan, 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. In the event of  the presence of regulated levels of contamination, measures will be taken to comply  with applicable requirements.  6. Contingency Plans for Unknown/Unexpected Conditions. The following tasks shall  be implemented during excavation activities if unanticipated hazardous materials  are encountered. Such materials may include unaccounted for underground storage  tanks 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 site safety officer and site superintendent.    Have an appropriate professional conduct a site inspection and determine  appropriate follow‐up actions, which would include appropriate handling and  removal of the identified hazard.   Review the existing health and safety plan for revisions, if necessary, and have  appropriately trained personnel on‐site to work with the affected materials as  required by applicable requirements.   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.  Administrative Draft Page 52  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  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, f)  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 Compatibility 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 between 182.67 and 223.63 feet above mean sea level, but could be modified  through consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).19 Factoring in the height of the  site, the applicant estimates that the proposed project would reach maximum heights of 173.5 feet  above mean sea level, all of which would be below the lowest FAA height limit at the site of 182.67  feet. The project appears to be consistent with height limitation identified in the ALUCP. Notification  and consultation with the FAA would be required under CFR part 77.9 and would ensure that the  project complies with regulatory requirements for air hazards. Therefore, this impact would be less  than significant.   g)  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  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. Any construction activities can result in temporary intermittent roadway obstructions, but  these would be handled through standard procedures with the City, such as approval of  encroachment permits, 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.  h)   Wildland Fire     The project site is 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                                                               19   Interpreted through coordination with FAA on project plans, consistent with: 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  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 53  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.20, 21 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.                                                                        20 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‐m aps/.   21 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.  Administrative Draft Page 54  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  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 May 7, 2021, which is available as part of the project application materials.  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.22 At a minimum, the SWPPP would include a description of construction  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                                                               22 SWRCB, Construction General Permit Order 2009‐0009‐DWQ (Construction General Permit)  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 55  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 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  deep soil mixing (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, no  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 be able to be  discharged into the sanitary sewer system with no additional treatment to meet water quality and  discharge requirements. 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. In the event of  the presence of unexpected levels of contamination, the groundwater will be pumped into  appropriate containers and samples obtained for chemical analyses and appropriate treatment prior  to disposal.  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  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  Administrative Draft Page 56  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  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. 23 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.   Through project compliance with applicable State General Permit requirements, City ordinances,  and County of San Mateo’s guidelines, the project 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 on a designated urban area within the Westside groundwater basin.24   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. 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.25  The site is currently undeveloped and therefore consists entirely of pervious surfaces. The project  would result in an increase of approximately 1.5 acres of impervious surface (78% of the site). The  project would construct new above and below ground drainage system that includes catch‐basins,  storm drain pipe, 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 Section 7: Geology and Soils, project construction activities would  require substantial excavation and related dewatering activities. Per the Draft Dewatering  Assessment, dewatering of up to approximately 6.4 million gallons could be required for project                                                               23 Regional Water Board, 2007, Order No. R2‐2007‐0027, NPDES Permit No. CAS0029921.  24 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control  Plan (Basin Plan), November 2019.  25 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.  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 57  construction, which the study concludes would result in the formation of a cone of depression  outside the site boundaries within the upper aquifer that would recover over a period of time  estimated to be about 900 days to full recovery after dewatering activities cease. 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 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 undeveloped and therefore consists entirely of pervious surfaces across the  1.9‐acre site. The project would result in approximately 1.5 acres of impervious surface (78% of the  site).     There is an existing storm drainpipe on the project site owned and maintained by Caltrans, located  within an existing 5‐foot‐wide stormwater easement. The project is not proposing any alterations to  the existing storm drainpipe. The proposed building is located outside of the existing stormwater  easement. 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 will 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.  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.26   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                                                               26 California Geological Survey, 2021, Tsunami Hazard Area Map, San Mateo County, available at:  https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.  Administrative Draft Page 58  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  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 a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone and  is therefore not at substantial risk of flooding from 100‐year or more common storms.27  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, and 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.                                                                    27 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.  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 59  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. While  currently vacant, 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 site is currently designated Business Commercial under the existing General Plan and zoned for  Freeway Commercial (FC) use, under which R&D and office uses are not principally permitted. The  project would seek a General Plan amendment to Transit Office/R&D Core and a rezoning to  Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District; Transit Office/R&D Core Subdistrict. The site is within  the boundaries of the DSASP. However, it was not specifically indicated for development in the  DSASP as it was in use as part of the Caltrain station property at the time, prior to the station  relocation and upgrade. While the proposed project would require a Conditional Use Permit for  Parking/Loading Reduction, and Incentive‐Based FAR Bonus, these are allowable development  standard approvals under the City’s planning process and would therefore not be considered  conflicts with the zoning.  The site is also within the boundaries of the East of 101 Area Plan (1994),  and the project seeks an amendment to remove the site from that plan.   The South San Francisco General Plan (1999) and East of 101 Area Plan (1994) are intended to be  replaced by the General Plan 2040 update that is currently underway. The applicant has been  coordinating with the City related to the General Plan update efforts and the project is intended to  be consistent with the General Plan 2040 update, which is expected to designate the site as part of  the East of 101 Transit Core. The proposed project currently conforms to the updated height,  density and use controls under the General Plan 2040 ‐ Preferred Land Use Alternative.28                                                               28 https://shapessf.com/preferredalternative/, last accessed November 18, 2021.  Administrative Draft Page 60  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with regard to land use plan  conflicts under the existing General Plan, DSASP, East of 101 Area Plan, and zoning map, each as  amended, and under the General Plan 2040 and related planning documents as currently proposed  in the City’s Preferred Land Use Alternative.     Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 61  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.29 The project would have no impact related to mineral  resources.                                                                        29   U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Resources Data System: U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Accessed November 2021,  at: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/  Administrative Draft Page 62  580 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 350 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.    Operationally, the project itself would not be considered a source of substantial vibration though  future R&D tenants could be vibration‐sensitive. While not an impact under CEQA, the applicant  completed an independent analysis of the vibrations of the nearby trains on the project design and  found that the design of the building could adequately mitigate any problems for target future  users.    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  Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 63  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  traffic under existing conditions and would therefore not experience a doubling in volume with the  addition of project traffic. Therefore, noise and vibration impacts from 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).30 Impacts related to excessive aircraft noise  exposure would be less than significant.                                                                  30   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  Administrative Draft Page 64  580 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 applicant projects an employment density of 350 gross square footage per employee. Based on  this, the project is estimated to introduce 842 new jobs to the City of South San Francisco. The  current South San Francisco General Plan was released in 1999 and does not have relevant  employee estimates and the updated General Plan, while being prepared during the preparation of  this document, is not yet available, though is expected to show consistency with the proposed  project at this site.   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 addition of  1,403,000 total jobs to the Bay Area between 2015 and 2050. The project’s addition of 842  employees would increase jobs in the City and region incrementally. Compared to the total jobs  projection for the entire Bay Area, the addition of 842 jobs would not be substantial or unplanned.  The location of an employment center adjacent to regional transit (Caltrain) would be consistent  with Plan Bay Area 2050 goals to reduce vehicle travel while meeting area demand for growth.  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.         Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 65  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 0.9 miles away from the project site, and the South San Francisco Police Department located  1 mile 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.     Administrative Draft Page 66  580 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.   Some employees at the site could use area facilities, including the nearby Jack Drago Park  (approximately 0.3 miles to the southeast). All development that does not include qualifying  publicly‐accessible parks and recreation amenities is required to pay in‐lieu fees to the City, which  helps fund City facilities and programs. The use of public recreational facilities would not be  anticipated to increase substantially due to use by 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.       Administrative Draft 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 67  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. As part of the South San Francisco Caltrain Reconstruction Project that is  currently in progress, an underpass is being constructed that would provide a direct connection for  pedestrians and bicyclists between areas to the west and east of the Caltrain tracks. This underpass  would also provide a connection to the new Caltrain station platform. As the project is located  adjacent to the Caltrain station, the new Caltrain station platform and underpass would provide an  alternative pedestrian connection between the project, downtown destinations, and areas to the  east of the Caltrain tracks.   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 South San Francisco General Plan requires project applicants to  provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements for new development. The  project would provide a clear walkway between the existing sidewalk on Dubuque Avenue and the  main building entrance on the north side of the building. A pedestrian walkway with landscaping and  lighting would be constructed along the western edge of the property along the access road that  would run parallel to Dubuque Avenue. The project will coordinate with Caltrain/Joint Powers Board  who currently own the parcels to the south and east of the project site to provide pedestrian access  between the project site and the Caltrain station. Therefore, the project would have a less than  significant impact on the existing and planned pedestrian facilities.  Administrative Draft Page 68  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  Bicyclists: Bicycle access to the project site is currently limited as there are no existing 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).   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. According to the South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan, Class III Bicycle Routes are  proposed along Dubuque Avenue between E Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard. Class III  Bicycle Routes are recommended on roadways frequently used by bicyclists that do not have the  necessary right‐of‐way (ROW) for installing bicycle lanes. Bicycle Routes are identified by either signs  or shared lane markings and they typically have a shared wide outside lane for vehicles and bicycles.  Because additional ROW from the project site is not necessary to implement the planned bicycle  facility along Dubuque Avenue, the project would not conflict with existing and planned bicycle  facilities. 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 adjacent to the Caltrain station.  Since the project is located  adjacent 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 currently‐underway Caltrain station improvement project at the  adjacent station 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.  A TDM program is required for the proposed project to meet the South San Francisco Municipal  Code, and has been proposed to include a vehicle trip reduction rate reduction of 40 percent. TDM  program measures further promote alternative modes, including pedestrian, bicycle, carpool, and  transit options.   The project’s preliminary TDM program is available as part of the project application. The TDM  program outlines the targeted 40% reduction, program and service measures, planning and design  measures, monitoring, reporting, and assurance of success of the plan. The following measures are  provided as part of the project’s TDM program:  •  Direct Route to Transit   •  Bicycle Parking, long and short term  •  On‐site Amenities  •  Carpool/Vanpool Parking   Carpool/Vanpool RideMatch     Reimbursing Travel Expenses  •  Guaranteed Ride Home Program  •  Transportation Coordinator and Kiosk  •  Carpool/Vanpool Incentives   Showers and Clothes Lockers   Shuttle Program   Transportation Management  Association   Reduced Parking   Pedestrian Connections   Commuter Benefit Options   Passenger Loading Zone  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 69  Roadways:  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 Traffic Operations Report prepared by Hexagon  Transportation Consultants, Inc., which is available as part of the project application.   The proposed project would generate an average of 2,159 new daily trips, with 222 new trips during  the AM peak hour and 220 new trips during the PM peak hour. These trip rates factor in a reduction  of 35%31 due to the location and implementation of a TDM program. The Local Traffic Operations  Report concluded that with implementation of improvements included in the City’s Transportation  Improvement Fee Program, the project would not cause any study intersections or freeway  segments to degrade from acceptable operations to unacceptable operations. The project would be  responsible for paying the Citywide Transportation Fee to contribute toward this fee program.   While some intersections / freeway segments operate at conditions considered unacceptable under  existing and/or cumulative conditions, the project’s contribution to those intersections would be  less than 2% of the total traffic through the intersection.  b)   Vehicle Miles Traveled   Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes 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 directly  adjacent to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. The project is proposing an FAR of 3.19, and is  seeking a parking reduction to provide fewer than the Municipal Code‐required number of vehicle  parking spaces.  The project is also consistent with the land use zoning that is proposed under the  City’s 2040 General Plan Update and would develop a vacant site.   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. As discussed above, the applicant’s preliminary TDM program  includes a targeted vehicle trip reduction rate reduction of 40 percent. Successful implementation of  TDM program measures could serve to further reduce project VMT.                                                                31 Note that while a 40% reduction is proposed, this analysis conservatively analyzed a lower 35% reduction. A 40% reduction  would result in fewer trips and related potential for impacts and is fully covered by this analysis.    Page 70  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  c)   Traffic Hazards   The Transportation Analysis evaluated the sight distance at each project driveway and the proximity  of the accesses to adjacent intersections. Vehicles would access the project site from an existing  driveway on Dubuque Avenue that would also provide access to the Caltrain station parking lot.  Visitor drop‐offs would occur at the entry plaza located at the northwest corner of the project site.  Parking access would be provided along the south end of the building. According to the South San  Francisco Municipal Code, the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue is 30 mph. There is no existing  on‐street parking located on the entire length of Dubuque Avenue in either direction. The project  would not construct any new driveways on Dubuque Avenue. The project proposes to install stop  signs at each intersecting point for new internal driveways as well as for vehicles exiting the shared  driveway at the intersection with Dubuque Avenue (see Figure 3).  A project traffic hazard safety impact is considered significant if the proposed project would provide  inadequate design features that present safety concerns within the project site or on the adjacent  streets.   Field observations showed that the existing curved alignment of Dubuque Avenue combined with  the existing fence/retaining wall impacts the visibility of northbound traffic for drivers exiting onto  Dubuque Avenue from the shared project and Caltrain station parking lot driveway. Additionally,  signs attached to the fence and vegetation at the corner of the property to the north obstruct sight  distance between southbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared project and  Caltrain driveway under existing conditions. Because the proposed project would add traffic to the  existing driveway on Dubuque Avenue, the project would exacerbate and existing traffic hazard and  result in a potentially significant safety impact. Mitigation Measure Trans‐1, below, would improve  the safety at the intersection of Dubuque Avenue and the shared Caltrain/project driveway.  Mitigation Measure  Trans‐1:  Shared Dubuque Avenue Driveway Safety Improvements. The applicant shall  coordinate the following safety improvements for the intersection of Dubuque  Avenue and the shared Caltrain / project driveway to provide adequate sight  distance between northbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the  shared Dubuque Avenue driveway.   a)  The  applicant  shall  coordinate  with  the  City  to  decrease  the speed limit on  Dubuque Avenue to 25 mph.  b)  The applicant shall coordinate with the City to reduce the height of the fence  along the retaining wall on Dubuque Avenue to the south of the project site to  improve visibility of approaching northbound traffic.    Additionally, the applicant shall coordinate with the City and adjacent properties as  reasonably feasible to address existing sight distance obstructions at the  intersection of Dubuque Avenue and the shared Caltrain / project driveway as  follows:  c)  Coordinate  with  Caltrain  to  relocate  or  reduce  the  height  of the existing  “Caltrain Station Parking” sign on the south side of the shared Dubuque Avenue  driveway  to  provide  adequate  sight  distance  between  northbound Dubuque  Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway.  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 71  d)  Coordinate with the property owner to the north to clear obstructing signs from  the fence and vegetation from the corner of their property to provide adequate  sight distance between southbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting  the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway.  With implementation of Mitigation Measure Trans‐1, the shared Caltrain/project Dubuque Avenue  driveway would have adequate sight distance and the project impact related to traffic hazards would  be less than significant with mitigation.   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 existing site access  roadway along the western property boundary would accommodate emergency vehicles. The  project would have no impact with regard to inadequate emergency access.     Page 72  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  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 consultation for projects in this area, notice was sent  to the list of seven local tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (see  Attachment B) on October 29, 2021. No requests for consultation were received.  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 will 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, Cul‐3, and Cul‐4 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, Cul‐3, and  Cul‐4 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.     580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 73  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 that includes the project, as  allowed under existing land use and zoning designation.  The project is not required to prepare a  separate Water Supply Assessment under Senate Bill 610 because the project is not one of the listed  uses and is projected to have less than 1,000 employees and can instead rely upon the planning  within the current UWMP, which indicates available supply for area development.     Statewide regulations and other factors can impact the water system reliability. Of note, the Water  Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay‐Delta Plan  Amendment, adopted December 2018, Resolution No. 2018‐0059) requires the release of 30‐50  percent of the “unimpaired flow” on the three San Joaquin River tributaries from February through  June in every year type to maintain the health of the Bay‐Delta ecosystem. If implemented with no  additional measures / supply in place to address the shortfall, this could impact the ability to meet  the projected water demand in the UWMP during multiple dry years. However, implementation of  the Bay‐Delta Plan Amendment is uncertain at this time for multiple reasons, including numerous  legal challenges in both state and federal courts, lack of implementation responsibility, current lack  of the identified agreement between stakeholder agencies. In the meantime, the SFPUC and the Bay  Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) ‐ of which the SFPUC is a member agency ‐  are pursuing numerous options to improve water supply reliability. The UWMP will continue to be  Page 74  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  updated regularly to reflect changes in regulations, projected demands, and water conservation and  supply reliability measures.    The project includes water infrastructure improvements to upsize approximately 1,000 linear feet of  6‐inch and 8‐ inch ductile iron water main within Dubuque Avenue to 12‐inch ductile iron pipe. This  improvement is a part of the proposed project and has been included in this analysis. Cal Water  would provide the design for the upsizing project and would perform all of the off‐site work up to  the proposed meter. The project proposes separate domestic service, fire service, irrigation service  systems, and onsite water improvements, consisting of an 8‐inch water main that would loop around  the building.    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. There is currently no existing sanitary sewer system on the project site. The  nearest publicly owned sewer system, which is owned and maintained by the City, is located on the  private parcel to the north of the project. The project would construct a 6‐inch sanitary sewer line  within an existing easement on the neighboring property. The impact related to required  wastewater capacity would be less than significant.    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. There is an existing storm drainpipe on  site owned and maintained by Caltrans, located within an existing 5‐foot‐wide stormwater  easement. The project does not propose any alterations to the existing storm drainpipe. The  proposed building is located outside of the existing stormwater easement. 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 development on a currently  vacant site, the project would result in an increase of approximately 1.5 acres of impervious surface  (78% 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. 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 would require coordination with Pacific Gas and                                                               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.  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 75  Electric (PG&E) to extend power from the pole approximately 100 feet north of the project site on  Dubuque Avenue or to install a new joint pole at the project site frontage. Although the project is  designed to operate with 100% electric energy as of commencement of operations, it will include a  stubbed natural gas connection for flexibility.  Accordingly, the project would also require  coordination with PG&E for an extension of the high pressure main for natural gas, as the nearest  gas distribution main is located approximately 230 feet north of the project frontage. 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.35 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 2034.36    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 12.66 tons of waste per year, or approximately 0.03 tons  per day. The estimate is conservative as it does not factor in any recycling or waste‐diversion  programs. The 0.03 tons of solid waste generated daily by the project would represent less than  0.001 percent of the permitted landfill throughput.37     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.                                                                     35 South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. website, “About Us”, available at: https://ssfscavenger.com/about‐us/,  accessed August 2021.  36 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 2021.  37 Solid waste estimated from CalEEMod default values in Attachment A.  Page 76  580 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.38, 39 The proposed project would have no impact related to  wildfire.                                                                    38 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State  Responsibility Aarea. Available:  https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire‐planning‐engineering/wildland‐hazards‐building‐codes/fire‐hazard‐severity‐zones‐ maps/.   39 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.  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 77    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‐4 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 specifically 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 Air‐1 to address construction period dust and emissions, and would  not result in considerable contribution to significant 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 Air‐1, Geo‐1, Haz‐1, and Trans‐1  would minimize the potential for safety impacts related to construction‐period emissions,  disturbance of site contaminants, appropriate techniques for safety during excavation and  dewatering and building construction, and adequate sight distance at the driveway connection to  Dubuque Avenue. Therefore, the potential adverse effects on human beings would be less than  significant with mitigation.     Page 78  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND  DOCUMENT PREPARERS  Lamphier ‐Gregory, Inc.  (Primary Report Preparers)  Rebecca Auld, Vice President  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  429 E. Cotati Ave  Cotati, CA 94931  415‐309‐2814  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 consultation with City of South San Francisco staff, including Christopher  Espiritu, Senior Planner.    SOURCES  1. AllWest Environmental, March 23, 2017, Environmental Site Assessment.  2. AllWest Environmental, February 23, 2018, Site Characterization Report.  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. 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/fir e‐hazard‐severity‐zones‐maps/.   6. 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.  7. 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‐s cenic‐highways  8. California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Bay Basin  Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), November 2019.  580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND    Page 79  9. California Water Service (Cal Water), adopted June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan:  South San Francisco District.   10. 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.   11. City of South San Francisco, 1994, East of 101 Area Plan.  12. City of South San Francisco, 1999, General Plan.  13. City of South San Francisco prepared by Atkins, October 2014, South San Francisco Downtown  Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH no. 2013102001).  14. DTSC and South City Ventures LLC, California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act (CLRRA) Agreement,  January 2020, Docket No. HSA‐FY19/20‐013.  15. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), April 2019, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map  Number 06081C0042F.  16. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, November 12, 2020, Preliminary Geotechnical Site  Assessment.  17. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, May 7, 2021, Draft Dewatering Assessment.  18. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, August 2, 2021, Preliminary Geotechnical Site  Assessment Supplemental Discussion.  19. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, January 15, 2021, Draft Soil and Groundwater  Management Plan   20. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, Transit Priority Areas, accessed at:  https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=370de9dc4d65402d992a769bf6ac8ef5  21. University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Online Database. 2019. UCMP specimen  search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/.    Appendices IS/MND Appendices         AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT ATTACHMENT A to the 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration    580 DUBUQUE AVENUE AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT South San Francisco, California November 19, 2021 Prepared for: Rebecca Auld Senior Planner Lamphier-Gregory 1944 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606 Prepared by: Zachary Palm Casey Divine & James Reyff 429 East Cotati Avenue Cotati, CA 94931 (707) 794-0400 I&R Project#: 21-029 1 Introduction The purpose of this report is to address air quality, community health risk, and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts associated with the proposed lab/office building construction located at 580 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco, California. The air quality impacts and GHG emissions from this project would be associated with construction of the new buildings, trips generated by the operation of the project, and operation of an emergency generator. Air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the project were predicted using appropriate computer models. In addition, the potential project health risk impacts (including construction and operation) 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 BAAQMD recommends using a 1,000-foot screening radius around the project site for purposes of identifying community health risk from existing sources of TACs. Project Description The approximately 1.89-acre project site is currently undeveloped. The project proposes to construct a 295,000 square-foot lab/office building along with a 350 space, below grade parking garage and a 0.5-acre public park. Construction is assumed in this assessment to begin in February 2022 and be completed by May 2024. 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 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 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. 2 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 TACs 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 northwest opposite U.S. Highway 101. Additional sensitive receptors can be found at further distances to the west and southwest 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 nitrogen oxides, or NOX, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and because the EPA has identified diesel particulate matter 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 PM 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 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 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. 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 5 See BAAQMD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/community- air-risk-evaluation-care-program , accessed 2/18/2021. 5 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 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. The BAAQMD defines 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 project site and it’s environs are not within a CARE area but are within a BAAQMD overburdened area as identified by CalEnviroScreen (version 4.0), where the overall score is at the 75th to 85th percentile within 1,000 feet of the project site. The BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines7 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 re quirements 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 and possibly new natural gas-fired boilers would establish new sources of particulate matter and gaseous emissions. Emissions would primarily result from the testing of the emergency backup generators, operation of the boilers for space and water heating and some minor emissions from cooling towers. 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 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. At the proposed facility, the diesel fuel storage tanks are expected to be 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. It is not expected that emissions of any pollutant will exceed the offset thresholds. Thus, is not expected that offsets for the proposed project would be required. 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. Project plans do not depict fireplaces. 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 i nternal 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. South San Francisco General Plan 1999 The South San Francisco General Plan 1999 includes guiding and implementing policies to reduce exposure of the City’s sensitive population to exposure of air pollution, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases. While the city is in the process of updating its general plan, the version passed in 1999 is still the most recent version. The following guiding and implementing policies are applicable to the proposed project: 8 GUIDING POLICIES: AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 7.3-G-1 Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. 7.3-G-2 Mitigate the community of South San Francisco’s impact on climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with state guidance. 7.3-G-3 Reduce energy use in the built environment. 7.3-G-4 Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling. 7.3-G-5 Promote clean and alternative fuel combustion in mobile equipment and vehicles. 7.3-G-6 Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing them from one another. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 7.3-1-1 Cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10, by implementation of air pollution control measures as required by State and federal statutes. 7.3-1-2 Use the City’s development review process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality and GHG emissions. 7.3-1-3 Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. 7.3-1-4 Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean-burning fireplaces and wood stoves. 7.3-1-5 In cooperation with local conservation groups, institute an active urban forest management program that consists of planting new trees and maintaining existing ones. 7.3-1-6 Periodically update the inventory of community-wide GHG emissions and evaluate appropriate GHG emissions reduction targets, consistent with current State objectives, statewide guidance, and regulations. 9 7.3-1-7 Adopt and implement the City of South San Francisco’s CAP, which will identify a GHG emissions reduction target and measures and actions to achieve the reduction target. 7.3-1-8 Evaluate and regularly report to City Council, or its designee, on the implementation status of the CAP and update the CAP as necessary should the City find that adopted strategies are not achieving anticipated reductions, or to otherwise incorporate new opportunities. 7.3-1-9 Promote land uses that facilitate alternative transit use, including high-density housing, mixed uses, and affordable housing served by alternative transit infrastructure. 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 the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in 2017 to include the latest significance thresholds that were used in this analysis are summarized in Table 1. Community risks are considered significant if they exceed these levels. 10 Table 1. BAAQMD CEQA 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 None 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 – direct and indirect emissions Compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy OR 1,100 metric tons annually or 4.6 metric tons per capita (for 2020) * 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. *BAAQMD does not have a recommended post-2020 GHG threshold. 11 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact AIR-1: 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.8 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 Modeling Land Use Inputs 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 295 1,000 sqft 295,000 1.89 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 350 Parking Space 156,399 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.5 Acre 21,780 City Park 0.5 Acre 21,780 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- 8 See CARB’s EMFAC2021 Emissions Inventory at https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. 12 site activity includes worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. The construction build-out scenario, including equipment list and schedule, were provided by the applicant. The applicant also provided other information such as hauling quantities, asphalt trips, and concrete trips. The CalEEMod construction information included the schedule for each phase. Within each phase, the quantity of equipment to be used along with the average hours per day and total number of workdays was set to the CalEEMod default for each phase. The construction schedule assumed that the earliest possible start date would be February 2022 and would be built out over a period of approximately 28 months, or 582 construction workdays. The earliest year of full operation was assumed to be 2025. 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 cement and asphalt truck trips. Demolition was modeled to remove 112 tons of pavement. The modeling assumed 134,016 cy of soil hauling of material for import and export. There would be import of 200 cy of asphalt. 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 by assuming each truck could carry 10 tons per load. The number of cement deliveries were provided for the project and converted to total one-way trips, assuming two trips per delivery. Asphalt trucks were assumed to carry 10 cy per delivered load, or 40 truckloads. 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 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). 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 2022 - 2024 were used in these calculations. Table 3 provides the traffic inputs that were combined with the EMFAC2021 emission database to compute vehicle emissions. 13 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 40 - 11 112 ton pavement demolition. CalEEMod default worker trips. Site Preparation 40 - - CalEEMod default worker trips. Soldier Piles/Micropiles 4,300 1,950 - CalEEMod default worker and vendor trips. Dewatering 17,612 - - CalEEMod default worker trips. Trenching/Foundation 700 - - CalEEMod default worker trips. Soil Remediation 240 - 9,502 76,016-cy soil export. CalEEMod default worker trips. Grading 720 - 7,250 58,000-cy soil export. CalEEMod default worker trips. Building Construction 24,080 10,920 - CalEEMod default worker and vendor trips. Building Interior 4,624 - - CalEEMod default worker trips Paving/Landscaping 585 - 40 200-cy asphalt. CalEEMod default worker trips. Notes: 1 Based on 2022 - 2024 EMFAC2021 light-duty vehicle fleet mix for San Mateo County. 2 Includes demolition and grading trips estimated by CalEEMod based on amount of material to be removed. Asphalt trips estimated based on data provided by the applicant. Summary of Computed Construction Period Emissions Average daily emissions were annualized for each year of construction by dividing the annual construction emissions by the number of active construction workdays 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. 14 Table 4. Construction Period Emissions Year ROG NOx PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust Construction Emissions Per Year (Tons) 2022 1.06 2.90 0.14 0.12 2023 2.18 1.92 0.10 0.07 2024 0.42 0.32 0.02 0.01 Average Daily Construction Emissions Per Year (pounds/day) 2022 (233 construction workdays) 9.13 24.91 1.23 1.03 2023 (261 construction workdays) 16.67 14.72 0.73 0.57 2024 (89 construction workdays) 9.41 7.28 0.38 0.21 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: Include measures to control dust and exhaust during construction. During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less-than-significant level. Additional measures are identified to reduce construction equipment exhaust emissions. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5. 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. 15 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. 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. 8. 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 Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.   Effectiveness of Recommended 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. Operational Period Emissions Operational air emissions from the project would be generated primarily from autos driven by future employees and operation of the emergency generator. 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 2025 if construction begins in 2022. Emissions associated with build-out later than 2025 would be lower. Traffic Information CalEEMod allows the user to enter specific vehicle trip generation rates. Project-specific traffic 16 trip generation estimates were provided for this assessment.9 The project would produce approximately 2,159 net daily trips when considering the TDM Plan Reduction adjustments applied in the traffic analysis. The daily trip generation was calculated using the size of the project and the adjusted 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 2022 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.10 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. There would be no natural gas usage as the City prohibits natural gas usage from new developments. Project Generator The project would include a diesel-fired emergency generator to provide 2,800-kilowatts (kW). It is assumed the generator would be powered by a 3,750 horsepower (hp) engine. This generator would be tested periodically and power the buildings in the event of a power failure. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that the generator 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 operation. During testing periods, the engine would typically be run for less than one hour. The engine would be required to meet CARB and EPA emission standards and consume commercially available California low-sulfur diesel fuel. Additionally, the generator 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 (greater than 1,000-hp), these include emission limits similar to U.S. EPA Tier 4 engines. The generator’s emissions, including BACT engine requirements, were modeled using CalEEMod. 9 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. 2021. Trip Generation Estimates for an Office/ Research & Development Center at 580 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco, California. July 30. 10 See CARB 2021: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/road- documentation/msei-modeling-tools-emfac 17 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 undeveloped, so an existing use CalEEMod run was not created. 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. Table 5 also shows how emissions are affected when current traffic from Petaluma customers at other Home Depot stores are included in the modeling. Table 5. Operational Period Emissions Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 2025 Project Operational Emissions (tons/year) 2.34 1.60 1.42 0.40 BAAQMD Thresholds (tons /year) 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons Exceed Thresholds? No No No No Total (lbs./day) 12.81 8.74 7.80 2.18 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-2: 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). Project construction activity would generate dust and equipment exhaust that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. The project would include the installation of an emergency generator powered by a diesel engine. Traffic generated by the project would consist of mostly light-duty gasoline- powered vehicles, which would produce TAC and air pollutant emissions. 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 18 localized air pollutants in the vicinity of the project. The impact of the existing sources of TAC was also assessed in terms of the cumulative risk which includes the project contribution. Community Risk Methodology for Construction and Operation 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, and increased traffic from the project. To evaluate the increased cancer risks from the project, a 30- year exposure period was used, per BAAQMD guidance,11 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 existing residences to the northwest, west, and southwest 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 the Project 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 PM2.5.12 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. 11 BAAQMD, 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Guidelines. December 2016. 12 DPM is identified by California as a toxic air contaminant due to the potential to cause cancer. 19 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 0.18 tons (363 pounds). The on- road emissions are a result of haul truck travel during 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 0.09 tons (189 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.13 Emission sources for the construction site were grouped into two categories: exhaust emissions of DPM and fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions. Construction Sources To represent the construction equipment exhaust emissions, an area source emission release height of 20 feet (6 meters) was used for the area sources.14 The release height incorporates both the physical release height from the construction equipment (i.e., the height of the exhaust pipe) and plume rise after it leaves the exhaust pipe. Plume rise is due to both the high temperature of the exhaust and the high velocity of the exhaust gas. It should be noted that when modeling an area source, plume rise is not calculated by the AERMOD dispersion model as it would do for a point source (exhaust stack). Therefore, the release height from an area source used to represent emissions from sources with plume rise, such as construction equipment, should be based on the height the exhaust plume is expected to achieve, not just the height of the top of the exhaust pipe. 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. Emissions from the construction equipment and on-road vehicle travel were distributed throughout the modeled area sources. 13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. 14 California Air Resource Board, 2007. Proposed Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles, Appendix D: Health Risk Methodology. April. Web: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/ordiesl07.htm 20 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 Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., when the majority of construction activity is expected to occur according to the applicant. Annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from construction activities during the 2022-2024 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), 15 feet (4.5 meters), and 25 feet (7.6 meters) were used to represent the breathing height on the first, second, and third floor of nearby single and multi-family residences.15 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. Third trimester, 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 MEI was located on the third floor (25 feet above ground) of a multi-family residential complex west of the project site. Table 6 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. 15 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 21 Figure 1. Locations of Project Construction Site, Project Traffic, Project Generator, Off-Site Sensitive Receptors, and Maximum TAC Impact Community Risks from Project Operation – Traffic and Stationary Sources Operation of the project would have long-term emissions from mobile sources (i.e., traffic) and stationary sources (i.e., generator). 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 Operational Traffic An analysis was conducted of the impacts of TACs and PM2.5 from local roadways increase in traffic due to the project. The project would generate 2,159 net daily trips.16 Most of these trips would be from light-duty, gasoline vehicles (i.e., passenger cars). To address the added community risks, the impact from this traffic was assessed using the CT-EMFAC 2017 emissions model, AERMOD dispersion model and cancer risk calculations following BAAQMD methodology described in Attachment 1. Figure 1 shows the modeled roadway segment. 16 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. 2021. Trip Generation Estimates for an Office/ Research & Development Center at 580 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco, California. July 30. 22 Traffic Emissions This analysis involved the development of DPM, organic TACs, and PM2.5 roadway emissions in the project area using the Caltrans version of the EMFAC2017 emission model, known as CT- EMFAC2017.17 CT-EMFAC2017 provides emission factors for mobile source criteria pollutants and TACs, including DPM. Emission processes modeled include running exhaust for DPM, PM2.5 and total organic compounds (e.g., 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 and 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 (major/collector), truck percentage for non-state highways in San Mateo County (3.13 percent),18 traffic mix assigned by CT- EMFAC2017 for the county, year of analysis (2025 – project operational year), and season (annual). Project operation was assumed to begin in 2025 or thereafter. To calculate the increased cancer risk from increased traffic volumes due to the project traffic, the community risks were adjusted for exposure duration to account for the MEI being exposed to construction for the first 3 years of the 30-year analysis period. The exposure duration from roadway traffic was adjusted for 27 years of exposure (2025-2051). To estimate TAC and PM2.5 emissions over the exposure period for calculating increased cancer risks from project traffic, the CT-EMFAC2017 model was used to develop vehicle emission factors for the year 2025. Year 2025 emissions were conservatively assumed as being representative of future conditions, since, as discussed above, overall vehicle emissions, and in particular diesel truck emissions will decrease in the future. Traffic Dispersion Modeling Inputs A conservative analysis was conducted based on project driveway locations where all project traffic emissions from on- and near-site travel were assumed to be entirely along Dubuque Avenue. The project’s trip generation provided by the traffic consultant of 2,159 net daily trips was used to assess project traffic impacts. 19 The average hourly traffic distributions for San Mateo County roadways were developed using the EMFAC model,20 which were then applied to the trip volumes to obtain estimated hourly traffic volumes and emissions for the roadways. For all hours of the day, the average speed of 30 mph on Dubuque Avenue was assumed for all vehicles based on posted speed limit signs on the roadway. 17 Note that Caltrans has not yet updated their version of EMFAC to incorporate EMFAC2021 emission rates for traffic modeling studies. 18 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 19 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. 2021. Trip Generation Estimates for an Office/ Research & Development Center at 580 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco, California. July 30. 20 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. 23 Dispersion Modeling Operational traffic roadway travel emissions were modeled with the AERMOD model using a series of adjacent volume sources along a line (line volume sources) to represent traffic emissions on the roadway segment where all of the project traffic would occur. Five years (2013-2017) of hourly meteorological data from the San Francisco International Airport prepared for use with the AERMOD model by the BAAQMD, were used for the modeling. TAC and PM2.5 concentrations for 2025 were calculated by the model at the same sensitive receptor locations with the same receptor heights of 25 feet (7.6 meter) used for the construction health risk modeling at the MEI location. Figure 1 shows the project roadway segments modeled and maximum receptor location used in the modeling. Table 6 lists the project roadway risks and hazards at the location of the MEI. The emission rates and roadway calculations used in the project impact analysis are shown in Attachment 4. Project Operational Stand-By Diesel Generator The project proposes to include a diesel-fired emergency generator along the northeast corner of the project site. Site plans show a designated area in that cor ner of the project site for the generator. Therefore, it was assumed that the generator’s emissions would be released 10 feet above the ground. This generator would be 2,800-kW powered by a 3,750-HP diesel engine. Operation of a diesel generator would be a source of TAC emissions. The generator 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. The generator 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 a diesel 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 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. 24 To obtain an estimate of potential cancer risks and PM2.5 impacts from operation of the emergency generator, the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to calculate the maximum annual DPM concentration at 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 generator model. Stack parameters for modeling the generator were either based on project-specific generator parameters (i.e., engine size) or based on BAAQMD default parameters (exhaust gas flowrate, stack height, exhaust gas temperature, and stack diameter) for stand-by diesel generators if that project-specific information were not available.21 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). To calculate the increased cancer risk from the generator at the MEI, the exposure duration was adjusted for 27 years of exposure for the maximum receptor. Table 6 lists the community risks from stand-by diesel generator at the location of the MEI. The emissions and health risk calculations for the proposed generators are included in Attachment 4. Community Risks of all Project TAC Sources at Project MEI The cumulative risk impacts from a project are the combination of construction and operation sources. These sources include on-site construction activity, project generator, and increased traffic from the project. The project impact is computed by adding the construction cancer risk to the increased cancer risk for the project operational conditions for the roadway, generator, and operational traffic at the MEI. For this project, the sensitive receptor identified in Figure 1 as the construction MEI is also the project MEI. Sensitive receptors could be present at this site for up to 30 years. At this location, the MEI would be exposed to 3 years of construction cancer risks and 27 years of operational (includes traffic, stand-by generator) cancer risks. The cancer risks from construction and operation of the project were summed together. 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 HI from construction and operational activities at the project MEI location would not exceed the BAAQMD single-source significance thresholds. 21 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 25 Table 6. Project Health Risk Impacts at the Off-site MEI Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM2.5 (µg/m3) Hazard Index Project Construction (Years 0 -3) Unmitigated 8.41 (infant) 0.06 <0.01 Project Generator (2,800kW, 3,750hp diesel-fired emergency generator, 50 hours/year operation) (Years 4 – 30) 0.43 <0.01 <0.01 Project Traffic (1/2-mile on-site distance) (Years 4 – 30) 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 Total Project (Construction + Operation Years 0-30) Unmitigated 8.88 (infant) 0.06 <0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated No No No 26 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 and based on provided traffic information indicated that two roadways, Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue, within the influence area would have traffic exceeding 10,000 vehicles per day. A review of BAAQMD’s stationary source geographic information systems (GIS) map tool identified eleven stationary sources with the potential to affect the project site and MEI. Figure 2 shows the project area included within the influence area and the location of the MEI. Details of the modeling and community risk calculations are included in Attachment 5. Figure 2. Project Site and Nearby TAC and PM2.5 Sources 27 Highways & Railways – U.S. Highway 101, CalTrain Zone 1 The project MEI is approximately 150 feet west of U.S. Highway 101 and approximately 600 feet northwest of CalTrain Zone 1. Screening data reported by BAAQMD for highways and railways were incorporated into this analysis. BAAQMD provided raster files with cancer risk and PM2.5 values for all highways/freeways, roadways (ADT > 30,000), and rail lines within the Bay Area. The risk values shown in the raster files were modeled in AERMOD in 20x20-meter grid cells. The files incorporate AADT for the highway using EMFAC2014 data for fleet mix and include the OEHHA 2015 factor. These raster files were used to screen Highway 101 and CalTrain Zone 1 risks and hazards upon the MEI. The freeway and railway screening level impacts are listed in Table 7 and included in Attachment 5. Note that the cancer risk value is not adjusted for age sensitivity or exposure duration. It is conservatively higher than adjusted cancer risk values. Refined modeling of the highway and railway would have resulted in even lower risk values. Note that BAAQMD has found that non-cancer hazards were found to be minimal, so an HI value is not included. Local Roadways – Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue A refined analysis of potential health impacts from vehicle traffic on Airport Boulevard and Grand 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 based on the modeled exposures. Attachment 1 includes a description of how community risk impacts, including cancer risk are computed. Emission Rates The development of roadway emissions for traffic on Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue was done in the same manner as the project roadway emissions above using CT-EMFAC2017. Inputs to the model include region (San Mateo County), type of road (major/collector), truck percentage for non-state highways in San Mateo County (3.13 percent),22 traffic mix assigned by CT- EMFAC2017 for the county, year of analysis (2022 – 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 and project site, the CT-EMFAC2017 model was used to develop vehicle emission factors for the year 2022 (project construction 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 2022 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. 22 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 28 The average daily traffic (ADT) for Airport Boulevard was calculated based on traffic data provided in the City of South San Francisco’s Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report.23 The estimated ADT on Airport Boulevard was 27,092 vehicles, and 34,134 vehicles on Grand Avenue. Average hourly traffic distributions for San Mateo County roadways were developed using the EMFAC model,24 which were then applied to the ADT volumes to obtain estimated hourly traffic volumes and emissions for the roadway. An average travel speed of 35 miles per hour (mph) on both roadways was used for all hours of the day based on posted speed limit signs on the roadway. Dispersion Modeling Dispersion modeling of TAC and PM2.5 emissions was conducted using the EPA AERMOD air quality dispersion model, which is recommended by the BAAQMD for this type of analysis.25 TAC and PM2.5 emissions from traffic on Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue within 1,000 feet of the project site were evaluated. Vehicle traffic on the roadways was modeled using a series of adjacent volume sources along a line (line volume sources); with line segments used for each travel direction on both roadways. The same meteorological data and off-site sensitive receptors used in the previous dispersion modeling were used in the roadway modeling. Other inputs to the model included road geometry, hourly traffic emissions, and receptor locations. Annual TAC and PM2.5 concentrations for 2022 from traffic on both roadways were calculated using the model. Concentrations were calculated at the project MEIs with receptor heights of 25 feet (7.6 meters) to represent the breathing heights of residents in the single-family homes. Figure 2 shows the roadway segments modeled and residential receptor locations used in the modeling. Table 7 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 2018 GIS website,26 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, seven generators, two auto body coating operations, and two gas dispensing facilities. The screening level risks and hazards provided by BAAQMD for the stationary source was adjusted for distance using BAAQMD’s Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool for Gasoline Dispending Facilities. Community risk impacts from the stationary source upon the MEI are reported in Table 7. 23City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, December, 2014. https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/6706/636483482120330000. 24 The Burden output from EMFAC2007, a previous version of CARB’s EMFAC model, was used for this since the current web-based version of EMFAC2014 does not include Burden type output with hour by hour traffic volume information. 25 BAAQMD. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May 2012 26 BAAQMD, https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65 29 Summary of Cumulative Health Risk Impact at Construction MEI 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 not have an exceedance with respect to community risk caused by project construction activities since the maximum unmitigated cancer risk, annual PM2.5 concentration, and HI do not exceed the BAAQMD single or cumulative-source threshold. Table 7. Impacts from Combined Sources at Project MEI Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM2.5 (µg/m3) Hazard Index Project Construction & Operation Unmitigated 8.88 (infant) 0.06 <0.01 Highway 101 BAAQMD Raster 21.09 0.44 - CalTrain Zone 1 BAAQMD Raster 11.70 0.02 - Airport Boulevard, ADT 27,092 1.65 0.08 <0.01 Grand Avenue, ADT 34,134 0.62 0.04 <0.01 Boston Properties (Facility ID #24795, Generators, Boilers), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.81 0.01 <0.01 Boston Properties (Facility ID #24795, Generators, Boilers), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 Genentech, Inc. (Facility ID #16024, Generators), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.11 <0.01 <0.01 Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc (Facility ID #17649, Generators), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.37 <0.01 <0.01 Lowe’s HIW Inc (Facility ID #18401, Generators), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.38 <0.01 <0.01 MacroGenics West, Inc (Facility ID #19179, Generators), MEI at 1000+ feet 1.58 <0.01 <0.01 NOD Auto Body Shop Inc (Facility ID #20215, Auto Body Coating Operation), MEI at 100 feet - - <0.01 Biotech Gateway – HCP c/o CBRE (Facility ID #20236, Generators), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 Unocal #1020 – Grand Martco Inc (Facility ID #109214, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 730 feet 0.61 <0.01 <0.01 Flyers #411 (Facilty ID #110786, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.15 <0.01 <0.01 A&K Supreme Auto (Facility ID #201062, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 200 feet - - <0.01 Combined Sources Unmitigated <48.09 <0.73 <0.14 BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated No No No 30 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. 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. 31 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. 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 greenhouse gas 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. 27 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 is currently working on a second update to the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The proposed Scoping Plan Update was published on January 20, 2017 as directed by SB 32 companion legislation AB 197. The mid-term 2030 target is considered critical by CARB on the path to obtaining an even 27 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 32 deeper GHG emissions target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as directed in Executive Order S-3-05. The 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 obtain the statewide goals. The new Scoping Plan establishes a strategy that will reduce GHG emissions in California to meet the 2030 target (note that the AB 32 Scoping Plan only addressed 2020 targets and a long-term goal). Key features of this plan are:  Cap and Trade program places a firm limit on 80 percent of the State’s emissions;  Achieving a 50-percent Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2030 (currently at about 29 percent statewide);  Increase energy efficiency in existing buildings;  Develop fuels with an 18-percent reduction in carbon intensity;  Develop more high-density, transit-oriented housing;  Develop walkable and bikeable communities;  Greatly increase the number of electric vehicles on the road and reduce oil demand in half;  Increase zero-emissions transit so that 100 percent of new buses are zero emissions;  Reduce freight-related emissions by transitioning to zero emissions where feasible and near-zero emissions with renewable fuels everywhere else; and  Reduce “super pollutants” by reducing methane and hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs by 40 percent. In the updated Scoping Plan, CARB recommends statewide targets of no more than 6 metric tons (MT) CO2e per capita (statewide) by 2030 and no more than 2 metric tons CO2e per capita by 2050. The statewide per capita targets account for all emissions sectors in the State, statewide population forecasts, and the statewide reductions necessary to achieve the 2030 statewide target under SB 32 and the longer-term State emissions reduction goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 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 33 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. 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 11.28 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 28 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. 34 systems. For nonresidential developments, it is predicted that these buildings will use 30 percent less energy due to lightening upgrades.29 Federal and Statewide GHG Emissions The U.S. EPA reported that in 2018, total gross nationwide GHG emissions were 6,676.6 million metric tons (MMT) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).30 These emissions were lower than peak levels of 7,416 MMT that were emitted in 2007. CARB updates the statewide GHG emission inventory on an annual basis where the latest inventory includes 2000 through 2017 emissions.31 In 2017, GHG emissions from statewide emitting activities were 424 MMT. The 2017 emissions have decreased by 14 percent since peak levels in 2004 and are 7 MMT below the 1990 emissions level and the State’s 2020 GHG limit. Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.1 MT per person to 10.7 MT per person in 2017. The most recent Bay Area emission inventory was computed for the year 2011.32 The Bay Area GHG emission were 87 MMT. As a point of comparison, statewide emissions were about 444 MMT in 2011 South San Francisco Climate Action Plan The purpose of the City of South San Francisco’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) is to demonstrate the City of South San Francisco’s commitment to reduce GHG emissions while protecting the unique resources of the community. The CAP is intended to build upon existing environmental preservation, public health, and energy-saving efforts. The CAP provides goals, policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissions, adapt to climate change, and support the goals of AB 32 and SB 375. On February 13, 2014, the City adopted the CAP which follows both the State and BAAQMD CEQA guidelines of reaching a target reduction of 15% below baseline 2005 GHG emissions levels by 2020. However, the CAP does not have a specific metric ton GHG threshold for project-level construction or operation. For each project, City staff monitor the implementation of the CAP using a Development Review Checklist (Appendix E of the CAP). The checklist is provided as Attachment 6. BAAQMD GHG Significance Thresholds The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not use quantified thresholds for projects that are in a jurisdiction with a qualified GHG reductions plan (i.e., a Climate Action Plan). The plan has to address emissions associated with the period that the project would operate (e.g., beyond year 2020). For quantified emissions, the guidelines recommended a GHG threshold of 1,100 metric tons or 4.6 metric tons (MT) per capita. These thresholds were developed based on meeting 29 See: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf 30 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2018. April. Web: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2020- main-text.pdf 31 CARB. 2019. 2019 Edition, California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory: 2000 – 2017. Web: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/ghg_inventory_trends_00-17.pdf 32 BAAQMD. 2015. Bay Area Emissions Inventory Summary Report: Greenhouse Gases Base Year 2011. January. Web: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/emission-inventory/by2011_ghgsummary.pdf accessed Nov. 26, 2019. 35 the 2020 GHG targets set in the scoping plan that addressed AB 32. Development of the project would occur beyond 2020, so a threshold that addresses a future target is appropriate. Although BAAQMD has not published a quantified threshold for 2030 yet, this assessment uses a bright-line threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year based on the GHG reduction goals of EO B-30-15. The 2030 bright-line threshold is a 40 percent reduction of the 2020 1,100 MT CO2e/year threshold. Evidence published by the State indicates the AB 32 goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels was met prior to 2020. Current State plans are to further reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Assuming statewide emissions are at 1990 levels or lower in 2020, it would be logical to reduce the BAAQMD-recommended threshold for meeting the AB 32 threshold by 40% to develop a threshold for 2030. 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. Emissions for the proposed project are discussed below and were analyzed using the methodology recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and the City’s Climate Action Plan. 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 operational period emissions. CalEEMod output is included in Attachment 2. Service Population Emissions The project service population is based on the number of employees and is estimated based on 350 square feet per employee. For this project, 350 square feet per employee results in a service population of 842 employees. Trip Generation Rates CalEEMod allows the user to enter specific vehicle trip generation rates. Therefore, the project- specific daily trip generation rate for the project was provided by the applicant.33 Saturday and Sunday trip rates were assumed to be the weekday rate adjusted by multiplying the ratio of the CalEEMod default rates for Saturday and Sunday trips to the default weekday rate. The default trip lengths and trip types specified by CalEEMod were used. 33 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Attachment: 580 Dubuque Avenue Trip generation Memo 073021.pdf 36 Construction GHG Emissions GHG emissions associated with construction were computed at 1,662 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. 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. The applicant provided annual electricity usage, water usage, and solid waste information. This information was included in the operational CalEEMod model run. As shown in Table 9, net annual GHG emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project are predicted to be 1,976 metric tons (MT) of CO2e in 2025 and 1,880 MT of CO2e in 2030. The service population emission for the year 2024 and 2030 are predicted to be 2.35 and 2.23 MT/CO2e/year/service population, respectively. The project is subject to the City of South San Francisco’s CAP to meet AB 32 requirements. The implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires the project to use the CAP checklist, would demonstrate the project’s consistency with the City’s CAP. Table 9. Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons Source Category Proposed Project in 2025 Proposed Project in 2030 Area 0.01 0.01 Energy Consumption 389.09 389.09 Mobile 1,377,99 1,281.99 Solid Waste Generation 11.30 11.30 Water Usage3 197.44 197.44 Total 1,975.82 1,879.82 Significance Threshold 660 MT CO2e/year 660 MT CO2e/year Exceeds bright-line threshold? Yes Yes Service Population Emissions (MT CO2e/year/service population 2.35 2.23 Exceeds service population threshold? No No Mitigation Measure GHG-1: South San Francisco’s CAP Appendix E New Development Checklist or other qualified GHG program in effect, shall be submitted along with any application for the project, demonstrating compliance with all mandatory requirements of the South San Francisco’s CAP Appendix E New Development Checklist, except where an item is not applicable or where a suitable substitution is provided. 37 Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The proposed project would not conflict or otherwise interfere with the statewide GHG reduction measures identified in CARB’s Scoping Plan nor would the project conflict with SB 100 goals. 38 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 and operational criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions. The operational outputs for 2030 uses are also included in this attachment. 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 6 includes the checklist from the City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. 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 2015.34 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.35 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.36 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 34 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. 35 CARB, 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. July 23. 36 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: 580 Dubuque R&D See Equipment Type TAB for type, horsepower and load factor Project Size 0 Dwelling Units 1.89 total project acres disturbed 0 s.f. residential Pile Driving - YES FOR SHORING ACTIVITIES & MICROPILES AT BOTTOM OF PARKING 0 s.f. retail 273,971 s.f. office/commercial - R&D Project include on-site GENERATOR during project - YES GENERATOR DURING AS BACKUP POWER 0 s.f. other, specify:IF YES (if BOTH separate values) --> 156,399 s.f. parking garage 350 spaces Kilowatts/Horsepower: 2800kW 0 s.f. parking structure 0 spaces Fuel Type: DIESEL Construction Hours 7 am to 3:30 pm Location in project (Plans Desired if Available): LOCATION AT GRADE ELEVATION 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 Demolition Start Date:2/10/2022 Total phase:5 Overall Import/Export Volumes End Date:2/16/2022 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 8 5 8 2365 Demolition Volume 1 Excavators 158 0.38 8 5 8 2402 Square footage of buildings to be demolished 0 Rubber-Tired Dozers 247 0.4 8 5 8 0 (or total tons to be hauled) 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 5 8 1436 _?_ square feet or Other Equipment?_?_ Hauling volume (tons) Any pavement demolished and hauled - 112TONS Site Preparation Start Date:4/22/2022 Total phase:4 End Date:4/27/2022 1 Graders 187 0.41 8 4 8 2453 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.4 8 4 8 3162 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 4 8 2297 Other Equipment? Grading / Excavation Start Date:5/27/2022 Total phase:48 End Date:8/2/2022 Soil Hauling Volume 2 Excavators 158 0.38 8 48 8 46111 Export volume = 58,000 cubic yard 1 Graders 187 0.41 8 48 8 29441 Import volume = 0 cubic yards 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.4 8 48 8 37939 0 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 8 48 8 0 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 48 8 27564 Other Equipment? Trenching/Foundation Start Date:4/28/2022 Total phase:140 End Date:11/9/2022 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 97 0.37 6 140 6 30148 1 Excavators 158 0.38 6 140 6 50434 Other Equipment? Building - Exterior Start Date:7/14/2023 Total phase:140 Cement Trucks -NONE FOR EXTERIOR End Date:1/25/2024 1 Cranes 231 0.29 10 140 10 93786 ELECTRIC 1 Forklifts 89 0.2 8 140 8 19936 DIESEL 0 Generator Sets 84 0.74 8 140 8 0 TEMPORARY POWER LINES 0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 7 140 7 0 1 Welders 46 0.45 8 140 8 23184 Other Equipment? Building - Interior/Architectural Coating Start Date:8/10/2023 Total phase:136 End Date:2/15/2024 1 Air Compressors 78 0.48 8 136 8 40735 2 Aerial Lift 62 0.31 8 136 8 41823 Other Equipment? Paving Start Date:3/4/2024 Total phase:45 Start Date:5/3/2024 1 Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 8 2 0.4 81 1 Pavers 130 0.42 8 2 0.4 874 1 Paving Equipment 132 0.36 8 2 0.4 760 1 Rollers 80 0.38 8 40 7.1 9728 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 40 7.1 11485 Other Equipment? Additional Phases - Soil Remediation Start Date:5/27/2022 Total phase:48 Start Date:8/2/2022 1 Soil Remdiation - Excavators 158 0.38 8 48 8 23055 EXPORT - 76,016 cu. yards clean and Class I Class II. IMPORT - 0 cu. yards 1 Soil Remdiation - Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 97 0.37 8 48 8 13782 0 0 0 0 0 0 Additional Phases - Soldier Piles/Micropiles Start Date:4/22/2022 Total phase:25 Start Date:5/26/2022 1 Shoring Soldier Piles/Micropiles - Crane 231 0.29 10 25 10 16748 1 Shoring Soldier Piles/Micropiles - Drill Rig 221 0.50 10 25 10 27625 1 Shoring Soldier Piles/Micropiles - Forklift 89 0.20 10 25 10 4450 1 Shoring Soldier Piles/Micropiles - Temporary Generator for Dewatering 84 0.74 24 540 518.4 805594 Temp Generator for 18Months 24hrs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 Equipment types listed in "Equipment Types" worksheet tab. Equipment listed in this sheet is to provide an example of inputs Complete one sheet for each project component It is assumed that water trucks would be used during grading Add or subtract phases and equipment, as appropriate Modify horsepower or load factor, as appropriate Complete ALL Portions in Yellow Asphalt - 200 CUYD Unmitigated ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust CO2e  Year MT 2022 1.02 2.22 0.11 0.11 388.97 2023 2.13 1.25 0.06 0.06 259.55 2024 0.41 0.11 0.00 0.00 21.93 2022 0.04 0.68 0.03 0.01 401.07 2023 0.04 0.67 0.04 0.01 442.94 2024 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.00 147.67 2022 1.06 2.90 0.14 0.12 790.04 2023 2.18 1.92 0.10 0.07 702.49 2024 0.42 0.32 0.02 0.01 169.60 Tons 3.66 5.15 0.26 0.21 1662.13 Pounds/Workdays 2022 9.13 24.91 1.23 1.03 233 2023 16.67 14.72 0.73 0.57 261 2024 9.41 7.28 0.38 0.21 89 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Pounds 35.21 46.92 2.34 1.82 0.00 Average 12.55 17.66 0.88 0.70 0.00 583.00 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5 Year Total 2.34 1.60 1.42 0.40 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons/year 2.34 1.60 1.42 0.40 Threshold ‐ Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 Pounds Per Day 12.81 8.74 7.80 2.18 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Category  Project  Existing Project 2030 Existing Area 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 Energy 389.09 0.00 389.09 0.00 Mobile 1377.99 0.00 1281.99 0.00 Waste 11.30 0.00 11.30 0.00 Water 197.44 0.00 197.44 0.00 TOTAL 1975.82 0.00 1879.82 0.00 Net GHG Emissions 1975.82 1879.82 Service Population  842.00 Per Capita Emissions 2.35 2.23 Average Daily Emissions  EMFAC Construction Equipment Total Construction Emissions by Year Workdays CO2e Tons Total Construction Emissions  Average Daily Emissions  Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Operational Criteria Air Pollutants Tons Existing Use Emissions  Total Construction Emissions  Net Annual Operational Emissions  Off-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetOff-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetConstruction Phase - From construction worksheetOff-road Equipment - Crane is ElectricOff-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetOff-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetOff-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetN2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)01.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - Assume PCELand Use - Estimated roadway and landscaped surfaces - 1 employee/1ksfUtility CompanyPeninsula Clean EnergyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0Precipitation Freq (Days)70Climate Zone5Operational Year20251.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.20City Park 0.50 Acre 0.00 21,780.00 0Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.50 Acre 0.00 21,780.00983Enclosed Parking with Elevator 350.00 Space 0.00 156,399.00 0Research & Development 295.00 1000sqft 2.00 295,000.00580 Dubuque R&DSan 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: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation FuelType Diesel ElectricaltblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00Table Name Column Name Default Value New ValuetblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15Vehicle Emission Factors - Emfac2021Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - All equipment t4i, BMPFleet Mix - Emfac2021Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - 2800 kw Generator = 3,753hp engineStationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps EF - Assume BAAQMD BACT= 0.5NOx 0.02PMOff-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetTrips and VMT - All trips entered into EMFAC2021Demolition - Based on construction worksheetGrading - Based on construction worksheetVehicle Trips - Trip gen with TDM = 2159/295ksf = 7.32/1.23/0.72Off-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetOff-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetOff-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheet - generator seperate overlapping phase CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 4.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 48.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 48.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 45.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 140.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 5.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 136.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 25.00tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 518.00tblConstEquipMitigation 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 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.02tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.02tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.02tblFleetMix LHD2 6.4120e-003 6.3300e-003tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.02tblFleetMix LHD2 6.4120e-003 6.3300e-003tblFleetMix LHD2 6.4120e-003 6.3300e-003tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.03tblFleetMix LHD2 6.4120e-003 6.3300e-003tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.03tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.03tblFleetMix LDT2 0.24 0.28tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.03tblFleetMix LDT2 0.24 0.28tblFleetMix LDT2 0.24 0.28tblFleetMix LDT1 0.07 0.04tblFleetMix LDT2 0.24 0.28tblFleetMix LDT1 0.07 0.04tblFleetMix LDT1 0.07 0.04tblFleetMix LDA 0.47 0.45tblFleetMix LDT1 0.07 0.04tblFleetMix LDA 0.47 0.45tblFleetMix LDA 0.47 0.45tblFleetMix HHD 2.0600e-003 2.5580e-003tblFleetMix LDA 0.47 0.45tblFleetMix HHD 2.0600e-003 2.5580e-003tblFleetMix HHD 2.0600e-003 2.5580e-003tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 7.00tblFleetMix HHD 2.0600e-003 2.5580e-003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblLandUse LotAcreage 6.77 2.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.15 0.00tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 76,016.00tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 140,000.00 156,399.00tblFleetMix UBUS 5.7200e-004 7.4300e-004tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 58,000.00tblFleetMix UBUS 5.7200e-004 7.4300e-004tblFleetMix UBUS 5.7200e-004 7.4300e-004tblFleetMix SBUS 4.3200e-004 4.1800e-004tblFleetMix UBUS 5.7200e-004 7.4300e-004tblFleetMix SBUS 4.3200e-004 4.1800e-004tblFleetMix SBUS 4.3200e-004 4.1800e-004tblFleetMix OBUS 1.4460e-003 2.3100e-003tblFleetMix SBUS 4.3200e-004 4.1800e-004tblFleetMix OBUS 1.4460e-003 2.3100e-003tblFleetMix OBUS 1.4460e-003 2.3100e-003tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.7430e-003tblFleetMix OBUS 1.4460e-003 2.3100e-003tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.7430e-003tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.7430e-003tblFleetMix MH 2.6570e-003 2.0400e-003tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.7430e-003tblFleetMix MH 2.6570e-003 2.0400e-003tblFleetMix MH 2.6570e-003 2.0400e-003tblFleetMix MDV 0.15 0.16tblFleetMix MH 2.6570e-003 2.0400e-003tblFleetMix MDV 0.15 0.16tblFleetMix MDV 0.15 0.16tblFleetMix MDV 0.15 0.16 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.10tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.40tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 7.10tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.40tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 10.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 10.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.40tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblLandUse Population 0.00 983.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.50 0.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.50 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF HHD 0.28 0.28tblVehicleEF HHD 0.15 0.13tblVehicleEF HHD 931.63 768.77tblVehicleEF HHD 1,585.25 1,745.93tblVehicleEF HHD 0.95 1.65tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 1.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 5.29 4.67tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.27tblVehicleEF HHD 0.18 0.25tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 178.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 36.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 36.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 10.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 178.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 8.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 81.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 81.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 9,502.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 7,250.00 0.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 11.00 0.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerDay 0.00 1.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 3,753.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF HHD 0.21 0.29tblVehicleEF HHD 0.42 0.58tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 4.0000e-006 5.8500e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0300e-004 1.7500e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 8.3030e-003 6.3920e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 9.4000e-005 1.3050e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 1.4000e-005 3.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0300e-004 1.7500e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.36 0.29tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 4.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 4.0000e-006 5.8500e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 8.7190e-003 8.6260e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 3.5840e-003 2.8900e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 4.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.09tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 2.40 2.74tblVehicleEF HHD 3.7460e-003 3.0270e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 5.24 3.95tblVehicleEF HHD 3.05 2.50tblVehicleEF HHD 0.26 0.28tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 1.0000e-006 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LDA 0.08 0.07tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 4.7100e-004 6.1800e-004tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.24tblVehicleEF LDA 0.17 0.27tblVehicleEF LDA 2.2060e-003 2.3710e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 5.0920e-003 6.1730e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.19tblVehicleEF LDA 0.08 0.07tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 1.4870e-003 1.7590e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.24tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 2.2400e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.1050e-003 1.0250e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.2000e-003 1.1140e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.6180e-003 1.9130e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.15 0.21tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 6.3990e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDA 47.59 62.52tblVehicleEF LDA 3.5080e-003 3.5780e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 2.01 2.73tblVehicleEF LDA 223.03 239.85tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 0.06tblVehicleEF LDA 0.46 0.53tblVehicleEF HHD 1.6000e-005 3.0000e-006tblVehicleEF LDA 1.3630e-003 1.6200e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 9.4000e-005 1.3050e-003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LDT1 0.09 0.12tblVehicleEF LDT1 5.5600e-004 8.0200e-004tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.42tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.20 0.42tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.6060e-003 3.0840e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 8.5960e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.34tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.09 0.12tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.7340e-003 2.2750e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.42tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 2.8060e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.3090e-003 1.4400e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.4220e-003 1.5650e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.8860e-003 2.4740e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.17 0.31tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 8.0170e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.09tblVehicleEF LDT1 56.19 81.09tblVehicleEF LDT1 4.1590e-003 6.8480e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.12 4.22tblVehicleEF LDT1 263.34 311.98tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.08tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.59 0.99tblVehicleEF LDA 0.19 0.30tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.1260e-003 4.1000e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 7.4000e-003 8.9940e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.19 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LDT2 5.8500e-004 8.0100e-004tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.19tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.22 0.29tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.7230e-003 3.1690e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 7.4300e-003 7.2480e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.14tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.07 0.06tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.5500e-003 1.7940e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.19tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 2.6940e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.2010e-003 1.1020e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.3050e-003 1.1980e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.6860e-003 1.9510e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.19 0.25tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 7.6970e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.04tblVehicleEF LDT2 59.15 81.06tblVehicleEF LDT2 4.2420e-003 4.4170e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.52 3.01tblVehicleEF LDT2 275.26 320.59tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.07tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.56 0.60tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.22 0.46tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.9400e-003 1.9300e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.01 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.34tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD1 6.6990e-003 8.1840e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.4500e-003 2.3260e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.2400e-004 1.6500e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.1600e-004 5.9200e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.7990e-003 9.3030e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.0500e-003 8.5920e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.5300e-004 6.1900e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.34 0.35tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.26 0.39tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.2100e-004 5.7300e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 751.95 745.68tblVehicleEF LHD1 11.12 18.86tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.97 2.39tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.57 8.29tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.18 0.20tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.51 0.68tblVehicleEF LHD1 5.8360e-003 5.0980e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.24 0.32tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.6830e-003 5.0900e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.14tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.07 0.06tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6500e-003 1.5680e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.06 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD2 728.51 785.97tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.48 10.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.57 1.33tblVehicleEF LHD2 13.29 13.09tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.14 0.14tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.46 0.43tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.4660e-003 4.9480e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.9890e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.06 0.10tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.8930e-003 2.9140e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.09 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.14 0.12tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.9000e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.0710e-003 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.3400e-003 7.2890e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.1000e-004 1.8600e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.3000e-005 8.1000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.06tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.14 0.12tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.9000e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.0710e-003 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.0600e-004 1.5100e-004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.10tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.7300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.6800e-004 0.05tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.03 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.0360e-003 7.5740e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.4000e-005 9.9000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.2700e-004 1.2600e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.07 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.7300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.6800e-004 0.05tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.03 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.1000e-004 7.4000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.6890e-003 2.6520e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.2000e-004 8.0000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3530e-003 1.2780e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.4140e-003 1.3360e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.37 0.47tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.15 0.22tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.08 0.07 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MCY 0.51 3.55tblVehicleEF MCY 0.35 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 5.9200e-004 4.4100e-004tblVehicleEF MCY 0.60 0.07tblVehicleEF MCY 1.93 1.22tblVehicleEF MCY 2.1060e-003 1.8430e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 2.17 0.89tblVehicleEF MCY 0.41 3.70tblVehicleEF MCY 0.51 3.55tblVehicleEF MCY 0.35 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.9050e-003 3.4890e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 0.60 3.15tblVehicleEF MCY 5.0400e-003 4.2000e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 2.0130e-003 1.8970e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 2.1570e-003 2.0310e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 3.1010e-003 3.7190e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 0.27 0.12tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MCY 0.02 7.1110e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 1.15 0.51tblVehicleEF MCY 59.80 44.64tblVehicleEF MCY 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF MCY 9.27 7.69tblVehicleEF MCY 212.79 186.43tblVehicleEF MCY 0.26 0.17tblVehicleEF MCY 18.30 10.67tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.03 0.06tblVehicleEF MCY 0.33 0.14tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.07 0.07 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MDV 0.08 0.06tblVehicleEF MDV 6.9200e-004 9.5300e-004tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.21tblVehicleEF MDV 0.25 0.34tblVehicleEF MDV 3.2660e-003 3.7910e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 7.6550e-003 8.4160e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.16tblVehicleEF MDV 0.08 0.06tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 1.5550e-003 1.8070e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.21tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 2.7040e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.2140e-003 1.1080e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.3170e-003 1.2030e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.6910e-003 1.9650e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.21 0.29tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 7.7240e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.05tblVehicleEF MDV 69.96 96.40tblVehicleEF MDV 5.5310e-003 5.3350e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 2.62 3.10tblVehicleEF MDV 330.48 383.68tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.07tblVehicleEF MDV 0.55 0.62tblVehicleEF MCY 2.10 1.33tblVehicleEF MDV 1.9550e-003 2.1320e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 2.71 1.08tblVehicleEF MCY 0.41 3.70 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MH 0.08 0.10tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 0.04 0.06tblVehicleEF MH 5.8350e-003 0.14tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 5.78tblVehicleEF MH 0.11 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 2.2300e-004 2.7200e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.25 21.03tblVehicleEF MH 3.2800e-003 3.3240e-003tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 2.4300e-004 2.9600e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 0.23 0.27tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF MH 0.92 1.15tblVehicleEF MH 16.60 21.42tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.07tblVehicleEF MH 1.78 2.27tblVehicleEF MH 1,419.69 1,667.34tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 0.42 0.70tblVehicleEF MDV 0.27 0.38tblVehicleEF MH 5.5960e-003 8.1070e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.16tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MHD 5.9280e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 2.3000e-004 1.7260e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 6.2030e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 1.1800e-004 1.3100e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 2.4000e-004 1.8050e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 1.30 0.99tblVehicleEF MHD 1.66 1.31tblVehicleEF MHD 8.1610e-003 8.0710e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.34 0.82tblVehicleEF MHD 8.7820e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.14tblVehicleEF MHD 1,043.81 1,250.18tblVehicleEF MHD 9.62 10.56tblVehicleEF MHD 1.06 1.26tblVehicleEF MHD 61.97 147.67tblVehicleEF MHD 0.38 0.67tblVehicleEF MHD 0.19 0.33tblVehicleEF MHD 1.4090e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 9.5150e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 0.09 0.11tblVehicleEF MHD 3.9340e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.07tblVehicleEF MH 5.8350e-003 0.14tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 5.78tblVehicleEF MH 0.11 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 1.6400e-004 2.1200e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.25 21.03 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.17tblVehicleEF OBUS 1,286.62 1,296.63tblVehicleEF OBUS 12.91 9.34tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.48 1.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 103.58 90.16tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.63 0.49tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.31 0.22tblVehicleEF OBUS 2.5540e-003 7.1970e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 0.05 0.06tblVehicleEF OBUS 6.7000e-003 6.5670e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 1.7600e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 2.6600e-004 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 6.3670e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 9.9640e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 9.5000e-005 1.0400e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 0.05 0.06tblVehicleEF MHD 5.8900e-004 1.3680e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 1.7600e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 2.6600e-004 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 6.3670e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 1.0900e-004 1.2000e-004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF OBUS 0.08 0.06tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 4.0100e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.6700e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 8.1250e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.2800e-004 9.2000e-005tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 9.8300e-004 8.5000e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.05 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 4.0100e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.6700e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 8.1250e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.3130e-003 7.9280e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3300e-004 9.1000e-005tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3700e-004 2.2300e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.6570e-003 8.2930e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4400e-004 9.9000e-005tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4300e-004 2.3300e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.48 0.72tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.21 1.13tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 9.8750e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.44 0.39 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF SBUS 0.48 0.28tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.3200e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.7200e-004 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.3910e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.1900e-004 7.3000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.32 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.5240e-003 2.5140e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.3000e-004 7.9000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.3050e-003 1.3170e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.4540e-003 1.3780e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.12 2.53tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.47tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.1850e-003 5.6650e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.13 1.37tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.10 0.11tblVehicleEF SBUS 971.83 958.41tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.11 6.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.56 1.23tblVehicleEF SBUS 367.56 204.35tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.01 2.38tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.80 1.39tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.8090e-003 0.08tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 8.5690e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.11 0.10 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF UBUS 7.8010e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.3000e-005 2.3000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.9940e-003 4.6870e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.10 0.07tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.08 0.14tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.3110e-003 9.5510e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.69 0.25tblVehicleEF UBUS 9.21 5.58tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.26 0.16tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.83 0.87tblVehicleEF UBUS 1,603.69 1,061.97tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 6.4140e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 11.42 6.30tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.06 0.05tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.52 0.55tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.11 0.17tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.70 0.44tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.3200e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.7200e-004 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.3910e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.3510e-003 8.9820e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.0000e-005 5.9000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.06 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.5190e-003 1.8720e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.09 0.07tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.04 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied2.1 Overall ConstructionUnmitigated ConstructiontblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.26 7.322.0 Emissions SummarytblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.11 0.72tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 0.00tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.90 1.23tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.07 0.03tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.55 0.61tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.4160e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 8.0370e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.9700e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 9.1000e-005 5.5000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.3800e-004 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 8.5230e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.05tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.4160e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 8.0370e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.9700e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.9000e-005 2.1000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.3800e-004 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.7760e-003 4.4790e-003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied2.97 0.00 1.19N20 CO2ePercent Reduction7.62 19.32 -10.42 1.16 55.00 89.33 71.36 55.00 89.07 77.31 0.00 1.19 1.19PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5ROG NOx CO SO2379.4492 379.4492 0.0614 0.0000 380.98335.4900e-0030.0000 21.9297Maximum 2.0408 1.6619 2.8282 4.4000e-003 0.0868 9.0300e-0030.0959 0.0407 9.0300e-0030.0497 0.00001.6000e-0031.6000e-003 0.0000 21.7925 21.79252.5000e-004 0.0000 1.6000e-0031.6000e-003 0.00002024 0.3992 0.1104 0.1788259.1343 259.1343 0.0167 0.0000 259.55230.0614 0.0000 380.98332023 2.0408 1.1184 1.8848 3.0200e-003 0.0000 8.1200e-0038.1200e-003 0.0000 8.1200e-0038.1200e-003 0.00009.0300e-0030.0497 0.0000 379.4492 379.44924.4000e-003 0.0868 9.0300e-0030.0959 0.04072022 0.8501 1.6619 2.8282N2O CO2eYear tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated ConstructionROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5387.3709 387.3709 0.0639 0.0000 388.96915.4900e-0030.0000 21.9298Maximum 2.1341 2.2195 2.5288 4.4900e-003 0.1929 0.1107 0.3036 0.0904 0.1069 0.1973 0.00004.5400e-0034.5400e-003 0.0000 21.7925 21.79252.5000e-004 0.0000 4.8200e-0034.8200e-003 0.00002024 0.4054 0.1089 0.1663259.1346 259.1346 0.0167 0.0000 259.55260.0639 0.0000 388.96912023 2.1341 1.2545 1.7352 3.0200e-003 0.0000 0.0602 0.0602 0.0000 0.06010.0601 0.00000.1069 0.1973 0.0000 387.3709 387.37094.4900e-003 0.1929 0.1107 0.3036 0.09042022 1.0222 2.2195 2.5288N2O CO2eYear 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: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied5.0779 0.1727 2,047.52530.0579 0.3982 50.5768 1,818.5323 1,869.10910.0176 1.3653 0.0586 1.4238 0.3403Total 2.3380 1.5954 6.40150.0000 46.0176 4.7265 0.1116 197.43610.2694 0.0000 11.2952Water0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 46.01760.0000 0.0000 4.5592 0.0000 4.55920.0000 0.0000Waste71.4566 71.4566 0.0100 0.0000 71.70710.0645 0.0540 1,377.9873Stationary 0.1540 0.6886 0.3926 7.4000e-004 0.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.02270.00008.2600e-0030.3485 0.0000 1,360.2753 1,360.27530.0148 1.3653 8.8800e-0031.3742 0.3403Mobile 0.8230 0.5515 5.7045386.7889 386.7889 7.4100e-0037.0900e-003 389.08743.0000e-0050.0000 0.0123Energy 0.0391 0.3553 0.2985 2.1300e-003 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.00002.0000e-0052.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0115 0.01150.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005Area 1.3219 5.0000e-005 5.9200e-003N2O 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 PM2.5Highest1.5725 1.16479 2-10-2024 5-9-20240.1235 0.11228 11-10-2023 2-9-20240.8620 0.87487 8-10-2023 11-9-20231.1935 1.16476 5-10-2023 8-9-20230.7049 0.62025 2-10-2023 5-9-20230.6819 0.60004 11-10-2022 2-9-20230.8021 0.68653 8-10-2022 11-9-20220.9277 0.79222 5-10-2022 8-9-20221.5725 1.13911 2-10-2022 5-9-20220.2808 0.1910Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedStart 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 0.005.0779 0.1727 2,047.5253ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO20.0579 0.3982 50.5768 1,818.5323 1,869.10910.0176 1.3653 0.0586 1.4238 0.3403Total 2.3380 1.5954 6.40150.0000 46.0176 4.7265 0.1116 197.43610.2694 0.0000 11.2952Water0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 46.01760.0000 0.0000 4.5592 0.0000 4.55920.0000 0.0000Waste71.4566 71.4566 0.0100 0.0000 71.70710.0645 0.0540 1,377.9873Stationary 0.1540 0.6886 0.3926 7.4000e-004 0.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.02270.00008.2600e-0030.3485 0.0000 1,360.2753 1,360.27530.0148 1.3653 8.8800e-0031.3742 0.3403Mobile 0.8230 0.5515 5.7045386.7889 386.7889 7.4100e-0037.0900e-003 389.08743.0000e-0050.0000 0.0123Energy 0.0391 0.3553 0.2985 2.1300e-003 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.00002.0000e-0052.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0115 0.01150.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005Area 1.3219 5.0000e-005 5.9200e-003CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx COMitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.20Soldier Piles/Micropiles Forklifts 1 10.00 890.50Soldier Piles/Micropiles Cranes 1 10.00 231 0.29Soldier Piles/Micropiles Bore/Drill Rigs 1 10.00 2210.40Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 2470.37Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 970.38Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40Demolition Excavators 1 8.00 158Load FactorDemolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse PowerAcres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 48Acres of Paving: 0Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 442,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 147,500; Striped Parking Area: 10,691 OffRoad Equipment5 13610 Paving/landscaping/finishing Paving 3/4/2024 5/3/2024 5 459 Building Interior Architectural Coating 8/10/2023 2/15/20245488 Building Construction Building Construction 7/14/2022 1/25/2023 5 1407 Grading Grading 5/27/2022 8/2/20225 1406 Soil Remediation Site Preparation 5/27/2022 8/2/2022 5 485 Trenching/Foundation Trenching 4/28/2022 11/9/20225254 Dewatering Architectural Coating 4/22/2022 9/21/2023 7 518 Generator Pump3 Soldier Piles/Micropiles Building Construction 4/22/2022 5/26/20225 5 working portion2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/10/2022 3/15/2022 5 4 working portion1 Demolition Demolition 2/10/2022 2/16/2022 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedTrips and VMT0.38Paving/landscaping/finishing Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.10 97 0.37Paving/landscaping/finishing Rollers 1 7.10 800.42Paving/landscaping/finishing Paving Equipment 1 0.40 132 0.36Paving/landscaping/finishing Pavers 1 0.40 1300.48Paving/landscaping/finishing Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 0.40 9 0.56Building Interior Air Compressors 1 8.00 780.45Building Interior Aerial Lifts 2 8.00 63 0.31Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 460.74Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37Building Construction Generator Sets 0 8.00 840.29Building Construction Forklifts 1 8.00 89 0.20Building Construction Cranes 1 0.00 2310.40Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 2470.38Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41Grading Excavators 2 8.00 1580.40Soil Remediation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37Soil Remediation Rubber Tired Dozers 0 7.00 2470.38Soil Remediation Graders 0 8.00 187 0.41Soil Remediation Excavators 1 8.00 1580.38Trenching/Foundation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37Trenching/Foundation Excavators 1 6.00 1580.48Dewatering Pumps 1 24.00 84 0.74Dewatering Air Compressors 0 0.00 780.37Soldier Piles/Micropiles Welders 0 8.00 46 0.45Soldier Piles/Micropiles Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97Soldier Piles/Micropiles Generator Sets 0 0.00 84 0.74 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied6.6000e-0040.0000 3.17797.8000e-0047.8000e-004 0.0000 3.1614 3.16144.0000e-005 8.2000e-0048.2000e-004Off-Road 1.8100e-0030.0156 0.02290.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Category tons/yrMT/yrFugitive Dust 1.2000e-0030.0000 1.2000e-003 1.8000e-0040.0000 1.8000e-004 0.0000NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eReduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads3.2 Demolition - 2022Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2HHDT3.1 Mitigation Measures ConstructionUse Alternative Fuel for Construction EquipmentUse Cleaner Engines for Construction EquipmentWater Exposed Area10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixPaving/landscaping/finishing5 0.00 0.00 0.00HHDTBuilding Interior 3 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_MixBuilding Construction 3 0.00 0.00 0.00HHDTGrading 6 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_MixSoil Remediation 2 0.00 0.00 0.00HHDTTrenching/Foundation 2 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_MixDewatering 1 0.00 0.00 0.00HHDTSoldier Piles/Micropiles 3 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_MixSite Preparation 4 0.00 0.00 0.00Vendor Vehicle ClassHauling VehicleClassDemolition 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTHauling Trip NumberWorker Trip LengthVendor Trip LengthHauling Trip LengthWorker Vehicle ClassPhase Name Offroad Equipment CountWorker Trip NumberVendor Trip Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied3.1614 3.1614 6.6000e-0040.0000 3.17790.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 6.2000e-0040.0147 0.0253 4.0000e-005 5.0000e-0055.0000e-005 5.0000e-0055.0000e-005 0.00000.0000 8.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.4000e-0040.0000 5.4000e-004 8.0000e-005Fugitive 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 PM2.50.0000 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 PM2.53.1614 3.1614 6.6000e-0040.0000 3.1779Total 1.8100e-0030.0156 0.0229 4.0000e-005 1.2000e-0038.2000e-0042.0200e-003 1.8000e-0047.8000e-0049.6000e-004 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied3.7572 3.7572 1.2200e-0030.0000 3.78760.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 3.1600e-0030.0348 0.0196 4.0000e-005 1.5300e-0031.5300e-003 1.4100e-0031.4100e-003 0.00000.0000 6.8500e-003 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0142 0.0000 0.0142 6.8500e-003Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.3 Site Preparation - 2022Unmitigated 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 CO6.6000e-0040.0000 3.1779Mitigated Construction Off-Site5.0000e-0051.3000e-004 0.0000 3.1614 3.16144.0000e-005 5.4000e-0045.0000e-0055.9000e-004 8.0000e-005Total 6.2000e-0040.0147 0.0253 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied3.7572 3.7572 1.2200e-0030.0000 3.78760.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 7.7000e-0040.0134 0.0255 4.0000e-005 7.0000e-0057.0000e-005 7.0000e-0057.0000e-005 0.00000.0000 3.0800e-003 0.0000 0.0000 0.00006.3700e-0030.0000 6.3700e-003 3.0800e-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 PM2.50.0000 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 CO1.2200e-0030.0000 3.7876Unmitigated Construction Off-Site1.4100e-0038.2600e-003 0.0000 3.7572 3.75724.0000e-005 0.0142 1.5300e-0030.0157 6.8500e-003Total 3.1600e-0030.0348 0.0196 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied22.9691 22.9691 7.4300e-0030.0000 23.15487.4300e-0030.0000 23.1548Total 0.0111 0.1173 0.0795 2.6000e-004 4.9400e-0034.9400e-003 4.5500e-0034.5500e-003 0.00004.5500e-0034.5500e-003 0.0000 22.9691 22.96912.6000e-004 4.9400e-0034.9400e-003Off-Road 0.0111 0.1173 0.0795N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.4 Soldier Piles/Micropiles - 2022Unmitigated 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 CO1.2200e-0030.0000 3.7876Mitigated Construction Off-Site7.0000e-0053.1500e-003 0.0000 3.7572 3.75724.0000e-005 6.3700e-0037.0000e-0056.4400e-003 3.0800e-003Total 7.7000e-0040.0134 0.0255 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied15.0478 15.0478 4.8700e-0030.0000 15.16954.8700e-0030.0000 15.1695Total 2.9800e-0030.0498 0.0973 1.7000e-004 2.8000e-0042.8000e-004 2.8000e-0042.8000e-004 0.00002.8000e-0042.8000e-004 0.0000 15.0478 15.04781.7000e-004 2.8000e-0042.8000e-004Off-Road 2.9800e-0030.0498 0.0973N2O 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: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0110 0.0000 215.61880.0593 0.0593 0.0000 215.3440 215.34402.5100e-003 0.0593 0.0593Total 0.9066 1.1311 1.4218215.3440 215.3440 0.0110 0.0000 215.61880.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.1341 1.1311 1.4218 2.5100e-003 0.0593 0.0593 0.0593 0.0593 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.7725N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.5 Dewatering - 2022Unmitigated 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: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0110 0.0000 215.6185Mitigated Construction Off-Site3.3400e-0033.3400e-003 0.0000 215.3438 215.34382.5100e-003 3.3400e-0033.3400e-003Total 0.8185 0.8939 1.5455215.3438 215.3438 0.0110 0.0000 215.61850.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0460 0.8939 1.5455 2.5100e-003 3.3400e-0033.3400e-003 3.3400e-0033.3400e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.7725N2O 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 COUnmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0102 0.0000 224.0782Unmitigated Construction Off-Site0.0534 0.0534 0.0000 223.8222 223.82222.6000e-003 0.0534 0.0534Total 0.9327 1.0901 1.4752223.8222 223.8222 0.0102 0.0000 224.07820.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.1298 1.0901 1.4752 2.6000e-003 0.0534 0.0534 0.0534 0.0534 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.8029N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.5 Dewatering - 2023Unmitigated 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: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0102 0.0000 224.0779Mitigated Construction Off-Site3.4700e-0033.4700e-003 0.0000 223.8219 223.82192.6000e-003 3.4700e-0033.4700e-003Total 0.8507 0.9291 1.6063223.8219 223.8219 0.0102 0.0000 224.07790.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0478 0.9291 1.6063 2.6000e-003 3.4700e-0033.4700e-003 3.4700e-0033.4700e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.8029N2O 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: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedUnmitigated Construction Off-Site38.1615 38.1615 0.0123 0.0000 38.47010.0123 0.0000 38.4701Total 0.0193 0.1813 0.2884 4.3000e-004 9.2400e-0039.2400e-003 8.5000e-0038.5000e-003 0.00008.5000e-0038.5000e-003 0.0000 38.1615 38.16154.3000e-004 9.2400e-0039.2400e-003Off-Road 0.0193 0.1813 0.2884N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.6 Trenching/Foundation - 2022Unmitigated 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: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.538.1615 38.1615 0.0123 0.0000 38.47000.0123 0.0000 38.4700Total 6.9900e-0030.1906 0.3287 4.3000e-004 7.1000e-0047.1000e-004 7.1000e-0047.1000e-004 0.00007.1000e-0047.1000e-004 0.0000 38.1615 38.16154.3000e-004 7.1000e-0047.1000e-004Off-Road 6.9900e-0030.1906 0.3287N2O 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 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 CO5.6400e-0030.0000 17.5863Unmitigated Construction Off-Site3.8900e-0034.5400e-003 0.0000 17.4453 17.44532.0000e-004 4.3000e-0034.2200e-0038.5200e-003 6.5000e-004Total 8.8100e-0030.0829 0.131817.4453 17.4453 5.6400e-0030.0000 17.58630.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 8.8100e-0030.0829 0.1318 2.0000e-004 4.2200e-0034.2200e-003 3.8900e-0033.8900e-003 0.00000.0000 6.5000e-004 0.0000 0.0000 0.00004.3000e-0030.0000 4.3000e-003 6.5000e-004Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.7 Soil Remediation - 2022Unmitigated 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 0.0000Category tons/yrMT/yr CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 CO5.6400e-0030.0000 17.5863Mitigated Construction Off-Site3.2000e-0046.1000e-004 0.0000 17.4452 17.44522.0000e-004 1.9300e-0033.2000e-0042.2500e-003 2.9000e-004Total 3.2000e-0030.0872 0.150217.4452 17.4452 5.6400e-0030.0000 17.58630.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 3.2000e-0030.0872 0.1502 2.0000e-004 3.2000e-0043.2000e-004 3.2000e-0043.2000e-004 0.00000.0000 2.9000e-004 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.9300e-0030.0000 1.9300e-003 2.9000e-004Fugitive 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 PM2.50.0000 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 0.0000Category tons/yrMT/yr CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 CO0.0216 0.0000 67.3999Unmitigated Construction Off-Site0.0207 0.1034 0.0000 66.8593 66.85937.6000e-004 0.1733 0.0225 0.1957 0.0827Total 0.0477 0.5030 0.391066.8593 66.8593 0.0216 0.0000 67.39990.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0477 0.5030 0.3910 7.6000e-004 0.0225 0.0225 0.0207 0.0207 0.00000.0000 0.0827 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.1733 0.0000 0.1733 0.0827Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.8 Grading - 2022Unmitigated 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 0.0000Category tons/yrMT/yr CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 CO0.0216 0.0000 67.3998Mitigated Construction Off-Site1.2400e-0030.0385 0.0000 66.8592 66.85927.6000e-004 0.0780 1.2400e-0030.0792 0.0372Total 0.0123 0.2701 0.493666.8592 66.8592 0.0216 0.0000 67.39980.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0123 0.2701 0.4936 7.6000e-004 1.2400e-0031.2400e-003 1.2400e-0031.2400e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0372 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0780 0.0000 0.0780 0.0372Fugitive 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 PM2.50.0000 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 0.0000Category tons/yrMT/yr CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 CH4Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.519.6732 19.6732 4.0200e-0030.0000 19.77384.0200e-0030.0000 19.7738Total 0.0238 0.1536 0.1738 2.5000e-004 8.1600e-0038.1600e-003 7.8200e-0037.8200e-003 0.00007.8200e-0037.8200e-003 0.0000 19.6732 19.67322.5000e-004 8.1600e-0038.1600e-003Off-Road 0.0238 0.1536 0.1738N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.9 Building Construction - 2022Unmitigated 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 0.0000Category tons/yrMT/yr CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 0.0000 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 PM2.519.6732 19.6732 4.0200e-0030.0000 19.77384.0200e-0030.0000 19.7738Total 4.7800e-0030.1423 0.1622 2.5000e-004 3.0000e-0033.0000e-003 3.0000e-0033.0000e-003 0.00003.0000e-0033.0000e-003 0.0000 19.6732 19.67322.5000e-004 3.0000e-0033.0000e-003Off-Road 4.7800e-0030.1423 0.1622N2O 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 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 0.0000Vendor 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 PM2.52.9026 2.9026 5.8000e-0040.0000 2.91705.8000e-0040.0000 2.9170Total 3.2100e-0030.0214 0.0254 4.0000e-005 1.0300e-0031.0300e-003 9.9000e-0049.9000e-004 0.00009.9000e-0049.9000e-004 0.0000 2.9026 2.90264.0000e-005 1.0300e-0031.0300e-003Off-Road 3.2100e-0030.0214 0.0254N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.9 Building Construction - 2023Unmitigated 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 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 0.0000 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 PM2.52.9026 2.9026 5.8000e-0040.0000 2.91705.8000e-0040.0000 2.9170Total 7.1000e-0040.0210 0.0239 4.0000e-005 4.4000e-0044.4000e-004 4.4000e-0044.4000e-004 0.00004.4000e-0044.4000e-004 0.0000 2.9026 2.90264.0000e-005 4.4000e-0044.4000e-004Off-Road 7.1000e-0040.0210 0.0239N2O 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 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 0.0000 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 CO5.9100e-0030.0000 32.5574Unmitigated Construction Off-Site5.6800e-0035.6800e-003 0.0000 32.4098 32.40983.7000e-004 5.7600e-0035.7600e-003Total 1.1981 0.1430 0.234532.4098 32.4098 5.9100e-0030.0000 32.55740.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0166 0.1430 0.2345 3.7000e-004 5.7600e-0035.7600e-003 5.6800e-0035.6800e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 1.1816N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.10 Building Interior - 2023Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 0.0000 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 CO5.9100e-0030.0000 32.5574Mitigated Construction Off-Site4.2000e-0034.2000e-003 0.0000 32.4098 32.40983.7000e-004 4.2000e-0034.2000e-003Total 1.1895 0.1683 0.254632.4098 32.4098 5.9100e-0030.0000 32.55740.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 7.9200e-0030.1683 0.2546 3.7000e-004 4.2000e-0034.2000e-003 4.2000e-0034.2000e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 1.1816N2O 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 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 0.0000 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 CO1.9500e-0030.0000 10.8520Unmitigated Construction Off-Site1.6700e-0031.6700e-003 0.0000 10.8033 10.80331.2000e-004 1.6900e-0031.6900e-003Total 0.3991 0.0455 0.078210.8033 10.8033 1.9500e-0030.0000 10.85200.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 5.2700e-0030.0455 0.0782 1.2000e-004 1.6900e-0031.6900e-003 1.6700e-0031.6700e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.3939N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.10 Building Interior - 2024Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 0.0000 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 CO1.9500e-0030.0000 10.8520Mitigated Construction Off-Site1.4000e-0031.4000e-003 0.0000 10.8033 10.80331.2000e-004 1.4000e-0031.4000e-003Total 0.3965 0.0561 0.084910.8033 10.8033 1.9500e-0030.0000 10.85200.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 2.6400e-0030.0561 0.0849 1.2000e-004 1.4000e-0031.4000e-003 1.4000e-0031.4000e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.3939N2O 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 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 0.0000 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 CO3.5400e-0030.0000 11.0778Unmitigated Construction Off-Site2.8800e-0032.8800e-003 0.0000 10.9892 10.98921.3000e-004 3.1300e-0033.1300e-003Total 6.2400e-0030.0634 0.08810.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.5400e-0030.0000 11.0778Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.8800e-0032.8800e-003 0.0000 10.9892 10.98921.3000e-004 3.1300e-0033.1300e-003Off-Road 6.2400e-0030.0634 0.0881N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.11 Paving/landscaping/finishing - 2024Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 0.0000 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 CO3.5400e-0030.0000 11.0778Mitigated Construction Off-Site2.0000e-0042.0000e-004 0.0000 10.9892 10.98921.3000e-004 2.0000e-0042.0000e-004Total 2.6900e-0030.0543 0.09390.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.5400e-0030.0000 11.0778Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.0000e-0042.0000e-004 0.0000 10.9892 10.98921.3000e-004 2.0000e-0042.0000e-004Off-Road 2.6900e-0030.0543 0.0939N2O 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 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied4.3 Trip Type Information4,071,667Total 2,159.40 362.85 212.40 4,071,667 4,071,667Research & Development 2,159.40 362.85 212.40 4,071,667Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual VMTCity Park 0.00 0.00 0.00Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT0.0645 0.0540 1,377.98734.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated1,377.9873Unmitigated 0.8230 0.5515 5.7045 0.0148 1.3653 8.8800e-0031.3742 0.3403 8.2600e-0030.3485 0.0000 1,360.2753 1,360.27530.0000 1,360.2753 1,360.2753 0.0645 0.0540CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrMitigated 0.8230 0.5515 5.7045 0.0148 1.3653 8.8800e-0031.3742 0.3403 8.2600e-0030.3485Bio- 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 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied7.4100e-0037.0900e-003 389.08740.0270 0.0270 0.0000 386.7889 386.78892.1300e-003 0.0270 0.0270NaturalGas Mitigated0.0391 0.3553 0.29850.0000 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 MitigatedN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Historical Energy Use: N5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.000743 0.023500 0.000418 0.0020405.0 Energy Detail0.028829 0.006330 0.008743 0.002558 0.002310Research & Development 0.448243 0.043109 0.275360 0.1578170.000418 0.002040Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.448243 0.043109 0.275360 0.157817 0.028829 0.006330 0.008743 0.002558 0.002310 0.000743 0.023500 0.000418 0.0020400.000743 0.023500 0.000418 0.002040Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.448243 0.043109 0.275360 0.157817 0.028829 0.006330 0.008743 0.002558 0.002310 0.000743 0.0235000.028829 0.006330 0.008743 0.002558 0.002310City Park 0.448243 0.043109 0.275360 0.157817OBUS 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 0Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.000.00 0.00 0 0 0Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.0048.00 19.00 66 28 6City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00H-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-WMiles Trip % Trip Purpose % CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH47.0900e-003389.0874MitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0270 0.0000 386.7889 386.7889 7.4100e-003386.7889 7.4100e-003 7.0900e-003389.0874Total 0.0391 0.3553 0.2985 2.1300e-0030.0270 0.0270 0.02700.0270 0.0270 0.0000 386.78890.2985 2.1300e-0030.0270 0.0270Research & Development7.24815e+0060.0391 0.35530.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 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 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000City Park 0 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 PM2.5386.7889 386.7889 7.4100e-0037.0900e-003 389.0874NaturalGas Unmitigated0.0391 0.3553 0.2985 2.1300e-003 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedMitigated0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development2.19185e+0060.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator850811 0.0000 0.0000Land Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrCity Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00007.0900e-003389.08745.3 Energy by Land Use - ElectricityUnmitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.0270 0.0000 386.7889 386.7889 7.4100e-003386.7889 7.4100e-003 7.0900e-003389.0874Total 0.0391 0.3553 0.2985 2.1300e-0030.0270 0.0270 0.02700.0270 0.0270 0.0000 386.78890.2985 2.1300e-0030.0270 0.0270Research & Development7.24815e+0060.0391 0.35530.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 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 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied3.0000e-0050.0000 0.01236.2 Area by SubCategory0.0123Unmitigated 1.3219 5.0000e-005 5.9200e-0030.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0115 0.01150.0000 0.0115 0.0115 3.0000e-0050.0000CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrMitigated 1.3219 5.0000e-005 5.9200e-0030.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005 2.0000e-0052.0000e-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 & Development2.19185e+0060.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator850811 0.0000 0.0000Land Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrCity Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0115 0.0115 3.0000e-0050.0000 0.01233.0000e-0050.0000 0.0123Total 1.3219 5.0000e-005 5.9200e-0030.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005 0.00002.0000e-0052.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0115 0.01150.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005Landscaping 5.5000e-0045.0000e-005 5.9200e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products1.1639 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.1575N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4MitigatedROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0115 0.0115 3.0000e-0050.0000 0.01233.0000e-0050.0000 0.0123Total 1.3219 5.0000e-005 5.9200e-0030.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005 0.00002.0000e-0052.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0115 0.01150.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005Landscaping 5.5000e-0045.0000e-005 5.9200e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products1.1639 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.1575CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx COUnmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.1116 197.4361Total 46.0176 4.7265 0.1116 197.4361Research & Development145.05 / 0 46.0176 4.72650.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000Land Use MgaltonMT/yrCity Park 0 / 0.5957410.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000197.43617.2 Water by Land UseUnmitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eUnmitigated 46.0176 4.7265 0.1116CategorytonMT/yrMitigated 46.0176 4.7265 0.1116 197.43617.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures WaterTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtonMT/yr8.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures WasteCategory/YearTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.1116 197.4361Total 46.0176 4.7265 0.1116 197.4361Research & Development145.05 / 0 46.0176 4.72650.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000Land Use MgaltonMT/yrCity Park 0 / 0.5957410.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000MitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedLand Use tonstonMT/yrMitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.0000 11.2751Total 4.5592 0.2694 0.0000 11.2952Research & Development22.42 4.5511 0.26900.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000Land Use tonstonMT/yrCity Park 0.04 8.1200e-0034.8000e-004 0.0000 0.020111.29528.2 Waste by Land UseUnmitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated 4.5592 0.2694 0.0000 Mitigated 4.5592 0.2694 0.0000 11.2952 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied10.1 Stationary SourcesUnmitigated/MitigatedBoiler Rating Fuel TypeUser Defined EquipmentEquipment Type NumberBoilersEquipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/YearLoad Factor Fuel TypeEmergency Generator 1 1 50 3753 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 11.2751Total 4.5592 0.2694 0.0000 11.2952Research & Development22.42 4.5511 0.26900.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000City Park 0.04 8.1200e-0034.8000e-004 0.0000 0.0201 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:22 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied11.0 Vegetation71.4566 71.4566 0.0100 0.0000 71.70710.0100 0.0000 71.7071Total 0.1540 0.6886 0.3926 7.4000e-004 0.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.00000.0227 0.0227 0.0000 71.4566 71.45667.4000e-004 0.0227 0.0227Emergency Generator - Diesel (750 9999 HP)0.1540 0.6886 0.3926N2O CO2eEquipment Type tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5 Off-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetOff-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetConstruction Phase - From construction worksheetOff-road Equipment - Crane is ElectricOff-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetOff-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetOff-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetN2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)01.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - Assume PCELand Use - Estimated roadway and landscaped surfaces - 1 employee/1ksfUtility CompanyPeninsula Clean EnergyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0Precipitation Freq (Days)70Climate Zone5Operational Year20301.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.20City Park 0.50 Acre 0.00 21,780.00 0Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.50 Acre 0.00 21,780.00983Enclosed Parking with Elevator 350.00 Space 0.00 156,399.00 0Research & Development 295.00 1000sqft 2.00 295,000.00580 Dubuque R&DSan 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: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation FuelType Diesel ElectricaltblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00Table Name Column Name Default Value New ValuetblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15Vehicle Emission Factors - Emfac2021Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - All equipment t4i, BMPFleet Mix - Emfac2021Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - 2800 kw Generator = 3,753hp engineStationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps EF - Assume BAAQMD BACT= 0.5NOx 0.02PMOff-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetTrips and VMT - All trips entered into EMFAC2021Demolition - Based on construction worksheetGrading - Based on construction worksheetVehicle Trips - Trip gen with TDM = 2159/295ksf = 7.32/1.23/0.72Off-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetOff-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheetOff-road Equipment - Based on construction worksheet - generator seperate overlapping phase CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 4.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 48.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 48.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 45.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 140.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 5.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 136.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 25.00tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 518.00tblConstEquipMitigation 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 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.02tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.02tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.02tblFleetMix LHD2 7.1360e-003 7.4140e-003tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.02tblFleetMix LHD2 7.1360e-003 7.4140e-003tblFleetMix LHD2 7.1360e-003 7.4140e-003tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.03tblFleetMix LHD2 7.1360e-003 7.4140e-003tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.03tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.03tblFleetMix LDT2 0.25 0.31tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.03tblFleetMix LDT2 0.25 0.31tblFleetMix LDT2 0.25 0.31tblFleetMix LDT1 0.08 0.04tblFleetMix LDT2 0.25 0.31tblFleetMix LDT1 0.08 0.04tblFleetMix LDT1 0.08 0.04tblFleetMix LDA 0.43 0.39tblFleetMix LDT1 0.08 0.04tblFleetMix LDA 0.43 0.39tblFleetMix LDA 0.43 0.39tblFleetMix HHD 1.7910e-003 2.3620e-003tblFleetMix LDA 0.43 0.39tblFleetMix HHD 1.7910e-003 2.3620e-003tblFleetMix HHD 1.7910e-003 2.3620e-003tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 7.00tblFleetMix HHD 1.7910e-003 2.3620e-003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblLandUse LotAcreage 6.77 2.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.15 0.00tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 76,016.00tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 140,000.00 156,399.00tblFleetMix UBUS 4.9600e-004 6.4500e-004tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 58,000.00tblFleetMix UBUS 4.9600e-004 6.4500e-004tblFleetMix UBUS 4.9600e-004 6.4500e-004tblFleetMix SBUS 4.2100e-004 3.9400e-004tblFleetMix UBUS 4.9600e-004 6.4500e-004tblFleetMix SBUS 4.2100e-004 3.9400e-004tblFleetMix SBUS 4.2100e-004 3.9400e-004tblFleetMix OBUS 1.3500e-003 2.2040e-003tblFleetMix SBUS 4.2100e-004 3.9400e-004tblFleetMix OBUS 1.3500e-003 2.2040e-003tblFleetMix OBUS 1.3500e-003 2.2040e-003tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.2620e-003tblFleetMix OBUS 1.3500e-003 2.2040e-003tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.2620e-003tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.2620e-003tblFleetMix MH 2.9170e-003 2.1460e-003tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.2620e-003tblFleetMix MH 2.9170e-003 2.1460e-003tblFleetMix MH 2.9170e-003 2.1460e-003tblFleetMix MDV 0.16 0.18tblFleetMix MH 2.9170e-003 2.1460e-003tblFleetMix MDV 0.16 0.18tblFleetMix MDV 0.16 0.18tblFleetMix MDV 0.16 0.18 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.10tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.40tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 7.10tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.40tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 10.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 10.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.40tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblLandUse Population 0.00 983.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.50 0.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.50 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF HHD 0.35 0.20tblVehicleEF HHD 0.14 0.11tblVehicleEF HHD 860.08 692.39tblVehicleEF HHD 1,405.74 1,514.61tblVehicleEF HHD 1.06 1.44tblVehicleEF HHD 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 5.46 4.57tblVehicleEF HHD 0.04 0.23tblVehicleEF HHD 0.19 0.18tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 178.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 36.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 36.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 10.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 178.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 8.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 81.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 81.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 9,502.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 7,250.00 0.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 11.00 0.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerDay 0.00 1.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 3,753.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 3.2200e-004 6.5000e-005tblVehicleEF HHD 0.43 0.53tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 2.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 6.0000e-006 2.3600e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 7.5950e-003 5.6170e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF HHD 1.5200e-004 3.9100e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 1.4000e-005 2.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 3.2200e-004 6.5000e-005tblVehicleEF HHD 0.36 0.27tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 2.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 6.0000e-006 2.3600e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 8.7570e-003 8.6350e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 2.6200e-003 1.9850e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 2.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.09tblVehicleEF HHD 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 2.40 2.65tblVehicleEF HHD 2.7380e-003 2.0820e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 5.01 3.57tblVehicleEF HHD 2.73 1.87tblVehicleEF HHD 0.23 0.24tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 0.21tblVehicleEF LDA 0.06 0.06tblVehicleEF LDA 1.9570e-003 2.1560e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 4.1500e-004 5.5700e-004tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.16tblVehicleEF LDA 0.12 0.20tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 2.9250e-003 3.8520e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.21tblVehicleEF LDA 0.06 0.06tblVehicleEF LDA 7.9200e-004 7.3600e-004tblVehicleEF LDA 1.1300e-003 1.3530e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.2290e-003 1.4710e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 2.2210e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 6.3460e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 8.6000e-004 8.0000e-004tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LDA 0.12 0.18tblVehicleEF LDA 2.9620e-003 2.8890e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LDA 197.85 218.14tblVehicleEF LDA 41.93 56.38tblVehicleEF LDA 0.38 0.43tblVehicleEF LDA 1.70 2.12tblVehicleEF LDA 8.5200e-004 1.0910e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF HHD 1.5200e-004 3.9100e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 1.6000e-005 2.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 0.23 0.21 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 0.31tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.3360e-003 2.8230e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 4.9600e-004 7.1700e-004tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.05 0.24tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.13 0.27tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 4.4220e-003 9.0470e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.31tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.08tblVehicleEF LDT1 9.1100e-004 9.5500e-004tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.2790e-003 1.6230e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.3910e-003 1.7650e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 2.7870e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 7.9630e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 9.9000e-004 1.0380e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.14 0.23tblVehicleEF LDT1 3.1790e-003 4.5000e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT1 236.05 285.53tblVehicleEF LDT1 50.08 72.58tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.44 0.66tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.81 2.84tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.1990e-003 2.2150e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.06tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.16tblVehicleEF LDA 0.13 0.22tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 4.2480e-003 5.6170e-003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LDT2 2.3850e-003 2.9270e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.0900e-004 7.3300e-004tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.12tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.16 0.22tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 4.7820e-003 5.1450e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.16tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.04tblVehicleEF LDT2 9.0400e-004 8.1200e-004tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.2080e-003 1.3780e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.3140e-003 1.4990e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 2.7180e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 7.7670e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 9.8200e-004 8.8300e-004tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.15 0.21tblVehicleEF LDT2 3.4280e-003 3.6740e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT2 241.10 296.13tblVehicleEF LDT2 51.42 74.14tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.47 0.52tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.22 2.46tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.3110e-003 1.4510e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.05tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.05 0.24tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.14 0.29tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 6.4520e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.08 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD1 2.4740e-003 2.3160e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.7600e-004 5.9000e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 5.8960e-003 6.6480e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.0100e-004 1.0400e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.8940e-003 9.2640e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.20 0.30tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.1600e-004 6.1700e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.18 0.18tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.94 16.36tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.0800e-004 5.3200e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.08 7.48tblVehicleEF LHD1 689.79 647.78tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.40 0.47tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.86 2.16tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.3910e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.18 0.18tblVehicleEF LHD1 3.9860e-003 4.1000e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.4850e-003 2.8900e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.12tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.17 0.24tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 6.9400e-003 7.4940e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.16tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.04 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD2 6.49 8.64tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6020e-003 1.5980e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 12.62 12.88tblVehicleEF LHD2 670.16 684.09tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.44 0.32tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.49 1.19tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.1310e-003 7.5520e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.13 0.14tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.4420e-003 2.3110e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.9160e-003 3.5820e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.14 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD1 5.9000e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.8000e-005 1.6200e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.5500e-004 0.06tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.8000e-005 7.3000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.7280e-003 6.3250e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.14 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD1 5.9000e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.8500e-004 9.6000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.5500e-004 0.06tblVehicleEF LHD1 5.5970e-003 6.3310e-003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD2 3.0400e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 8.3390e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.4000e-005 8.5000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.2300e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.2100e-004 1.2300e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.4670e-003 6.5820e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.05 0.05tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.0400e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 8.3390e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 9.9000e-005 4.6000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.2300e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.7060e-003 2.6170e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.4100e-003 1.3670e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.0700e-004 5.0000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.16tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.4740e-003 1.4290e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.06 0.06tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.21 0.28tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.06 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MCY 0.61 0.07tblVehicleEF MCY 0.49 3.54tblVehicleEF MCY 2.1040e-003 1.8310e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 5.8200e-004 3.9200e-004tblVehicleEF MCY 0.39 3.67tblVehicleEF MCY 1.89 1.03tblVehicleEF MCY 0.36 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.13 0.79tblVehicleEF MCY 0.61 2.69tblVehicleEF MCY 0.49 3.54tblVehicleEF MCY 2.0680e-003 1.9300e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 2.8140e-003 3.4020e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 3.0130e-003 3.6390e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 5.0400e-003 4.2000e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MCY 2.2180e-003 2.0690e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 1.14 0.47tblVehicleEF MCY 0.27 0.09tblVehicleEF MCY 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF MCY 0.02 5.5840e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 212.58 185.26tblVehicleEF MCY 58.78 39.68tblVehicleEF MCY 17.76 9.71tblVehicleEF MCY 9.39 7.58tblVehicleEF MCY 0.32 0.13tblVehicleEF MCY 0.25 0.14tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.05 0.05tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.08 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.17tblVehicleEF MDV 2.8580e-003 3.4850e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 5.9800e-004 8.6800e-004tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.13tblVehicleEF MDV 0.16 0.24tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 4.5430e-003 5.3030e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.17tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF MDV 8.8200e-004 7.9000e-004tblVehicleEF MDV 1.1810e-003 1.3510e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.2840e-003 1.4690e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 2.7250e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 7.7870e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 9.5700e-004 8.5800e-004tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MDV 0.15 0.22tblVehicleEF MDV 4.5060e-003 4.1700e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MDV 289.25 352.66tblVehicleEF MDV 60.44 87.77tblVehicleEF MDV 0.45 0.52tblVehicleEF MDV 2.21 2.46tblVehicleEF MDV 1.2400e-003 1.4660e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.05tblVehicleEF MCY 0.39 3.67tblVehicleEF MCY 2.06 1.12tblVehicleEF MCY 0.36 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.68 0.98 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MH 2.9870e-003 0.07tblVehicleEF MH 0.07 0.08tblVehicleEF MH 0.08 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.16 10.82tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 2.82tblVehicleEF MH 8.6970e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 2.0500e-004 2.2800e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 3.2890e-003 3.3360e-003tblVehicleEF MH 9.1290e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 2.2300e-004 2.4800e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 0.84 1.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.22 0.25tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.07tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF MH 1,315.39 1,657.15tblVehicleEF MH 15.06 19.91tblVehicleEF MH 0.22 0.26tblVehicleEF MH 1.59 1.85tblVehicleEF MH 4.0670e-003 4.8170e-003tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.13tblVehicleEF MDV 0.18 0.26tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 6.5690e-003 7.7170e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.05 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 1.1300e-004 1.1800e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 1.1100e-004 6.0800e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 6.3200e-003 5.3910e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 1.67 1.12tblVehicleEF MHD 1.1600e-004 6.3600e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 0.29 0.66tblVehicleEF MHD 1.31 0.56tblVehicleEF MHD 0.12 0.13tblVehicleEF MHD 8.0480e-003 6.8930e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 8.66 9.48tblVehicleEF MHD 7.8550e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 55.53 130.08tblVehicleEF MHD 958.82 1,103.52tblVehicleEF MHD 0.14 0.16tblVehicleEF MHD 0.87 0.98tblVehicleEF MHD 8.5280e-003 9.1350e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.38 0.63tblVehicleEF MHD 3.9010e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 9.3700e-004 9.6240e-003tblVehicleEF MH 2.9870e-003 0.07tblVehicleEF MH 0.08 0.09tblVehicleEF MH 0.08 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.04 0.05tblVehicleEF MH 0.16 10.82tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 2.82tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 1.4900e-004 1.9700e-004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF OBUS 11.93 7.62tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 104.99 88.87tblVehicleEF OBUS 1,195.47 1,192.98tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.22 0.16tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.34 0.83tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 8.2390e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.67 0.50tblVehicleEF OBUS 6.7860e-003 6.9140e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.7360e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 0.05 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5500e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 3.9100e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 8.6000e-005 9.4000e-005tblVehicleEF MHD 2.1500e-004 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 5.2700e-004 1.1950e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 9.1510e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 0.04 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5500e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 3.9100e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 1.0400e-004 1.0900e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 2.1500e-004 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 6.0400e-003 5.1470e-003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.8500e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 6.5600e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.1800e-004 7.5000e-005tblVehicleEF OBUS 6.9700e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 9.9600e-004 8.3400e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.8500e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 6.5600e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.05 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3400e-004 7.7000e-005tblVehicleEF OBUS 6.9700e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.7140e-003 7.2850e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4600e-004 8.4000e-005tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4900e-004 1.9800e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 8.0770e-003 7.6200e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.22 1.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.5600e-004 2.0700e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.47 0.34tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.49 0.65tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.12 0.16tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 7.5270e-003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.71 0.33tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.7400e-004 8.6000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.0240e-003 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.4240e-003 2.4700e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 6.7620e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.7210e-003 7.2300e-004tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.32 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 7.0920e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.8900e-004 9.4000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.6950e-003 9.8790e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.99 0.50tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.7990e-003 7.5800e-004tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.28 1.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.37 1.45tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.08 0.09tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 6.2860e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 11.09 6.59tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 372.76 200.53tblVehicleEF SBUS 883.04 857.53tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.52 0.91tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.02 1.22tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 8.9860e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.81 2.80tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.16 0.11tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.7190e-003 0.07tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.05 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.9300e-003 3.9500e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 9.1000e-005 2.5000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.08 0.16tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.06tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.67 0.21tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.27 0.14tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.7250e-003 6.8380e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 1,616.16 954.90tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.49 5.22tblVehicleEF UBUS 13.25 7.38tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.82 0.83tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.75 0.64tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.0630e-003 4.5120e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.09 0.06tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.6900e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.07 0.13tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.03 0.51tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.1000e-004 6.5000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.0240e-003 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.5870e-003 1.8280e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.5360e-003 8.0270e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.08 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.6900e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.06 0.05 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied2.2 Overall Operational2.0 Emissions SummarytblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.26 7.32tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 0.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.11 0.72tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 0.00tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.90 1.23tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.1800e-004 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.4000e-005 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.79 0.69tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.3500e-004 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.6730e-003 3.4250e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 7.2300e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.4000e-005 5.2000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.1800e-004 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.4000e-005 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.3500e-004 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.6730e-003 3.4250e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.7140e-003 3.7730e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.3000e-005 2.3000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.8010e-003 0.02 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0520 0.0473 1,281.99276.2400e-0030.3468 0.0000 1,266.6016 1,266.60160.0137 1.3661 6.7000e-0031.3728 0.3405Mobile 0.6794 0.4107 4.8140386.7889 386.7889 7.4100e-0037.0900e-003 389.08743.0000e-0050.0000 0.0123Energy 0.0391 0.3553 0.2985 2.1300e-003 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.00002.0000e-0052.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0115 0.01150.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005Area 1.3219 5.0000e-005 5.9100e-003CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO5.0653 0.1660 1,951.5306Mitigated Operational0.0559 0.3964 50.5768 1,724.8587 1,775.43540.0166 1.3661 0.0564 1.4224 0.3405Total 2.1944 1.4547 5.51090.0000 46.0176 4.7265 0.1116 197.43610.2694 0.0000 11.2952Water0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 46.01760.0000 0.0000 4.5592 0.0000 4.55920.0000 0.0000Waste71.4566 71.4566 0.0100 0.0000 71.70710.0520 0.0473 1,281.9927Stationary 0.1540 0.6886 0.3926 7.4000e-004 0.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.02270.00006.2400e-0030.3468 0.0000 1,266.6016 1,266.60160.0137 1.3661 6.7000e-0031.3728 0.3405Mobile 0.6794 0.4107 4.8140386.7889 386.7889 7.4100e-0037.0900e-003 389.08743.0000e-0050.0000 0.0123Energy 0.0391 0.3553 0.2985 2.1300e-003 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.00002.0000e-0052.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0115 0.01150.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005Area 1.3219 5.0000e-005 5.9100e-003N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated OperationalROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied4,071,667Total 2,159.40 362.85 212.40 4,071,667 4,071,667Research & Development 2,159.40 362.85 212.40 4,071,667Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual VMTCity Park 0.00 0.00 0.00Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT0.0520 0.0473 1,281.99274.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated1,281.9927Unmitigated 0.6794 0.4107 4.8140 0.0137 1.3661 6.7000e-0031.3728 0.3405 6.2400e-0030.3468 0.0000 1,266.6016 1,266.60160.0000 1,266.6016 1,266.6016 0.0520 0.0473CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrMitigated 0.6794 0.4107 4.8140 0.0137 1.3661 6.7000e-0031.3728 0.3405 6.2400e-0030.3468Bio- 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 PM100.00 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 0.005.0653 0.1660 1,951.5306ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO20.0559 0.3964 50.5768 1,724.8587 1,775.43540.0166 1.3661 0.0564 1.4224 0.3405Total 2.1944 1.4547 5.51090.0000 46.0176 4.7265 0.1116 197.43610.2694 0.0000 11.2952Water0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 46.01760.0000 0.0000 4.5592 0.0000 4.55920.0000 0.0000Waste71.4566 71.4566 0.0100 0.0000 71.7071Stationary 0.1540 0.6886 0.3926 7.4000e-004 0.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.02270.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 0.0000Electricity MitigatedN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Historical Energy Use: N5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.000645 0.024811 0.000394 0.0021465.0 Energy Detail0.031644 0.007414 0.008262 0.002362 0.002204Research & Development 0.392609 0.040642 0.308969 0.1778960.000394 0.002146Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.392609 0.040642 0.308969 0.177896 0.031644 0.007414 0.008262 0.002362 0.002204 0.000645 0.024811 0.000394 0.0021460.000645 0.024811 0.000394 0.002146Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.392609 0.040642 0.308969 0.177896 0.031644 0.007414 0.008262 0.002362 0.002204 0.000645 0.0248110.031644 0.007414 0.008262 0.002362 0.002204City Park 0.392609 0.040642 0.308969 0.177896OBUS 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 0Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.000.00 0.00 0 0 0Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.0048.00 19.00 66 28 6City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00H-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 % CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - 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 CH47.0900e-003389.0874MitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0270 0.0000 386.7889 386.7889 7.4100e-003386.7889 7.4100e-003 7.0900e-003389.0874Total 0.0391 0.3553 0.2985 2.1300e-0030.0270 0.0270 0.02700.0270 0.0270 0.0000 386.78890.2985 2.1300e-0030.0270 0.0270Research & Development7.24815e+0060.0391 0.35530.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 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 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000City Park 0 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 PM2.5386.7889 386.7889 7.4100e-0037.0900e-003 389.08747.4100e-0037.0900e-003 389.0874NaturalGas Unmitigated0.0391 0.3553 0.2985 2.1300e-003 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.00000.0270 0.0270 0.0000 386.7889 386.78892.1300e-003 0.0270 0.0270NaturalGas Mitigated0.0391 0.3553 0.29850.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity Unmitigated0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedMitigated0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development2.19185e+0060.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator850811 0.0000 0.0000Land Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrCity Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00007.0900e-003389.08745.3 Energy by Land Use - ElectricityUnmitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.0270 0.0000 386.7889 386.7889 7.4100e-003386.7889 7.4100e-003 7.0900e-003389.0874Total 0.0391 0.3553 0.2985 2.1300e-0030.0270 0.0270 0.02700.0270 0.0270 0.0000 386.78890.2985 2.1300e-0030.0270 0.0270Research & Development7.24815e+0060.0391 0.35530.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 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 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yr CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied3.0000e-0050.0000 0.01230.0123Unmitigated 1.3219 5.0000e-005 5.9100e-0030.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0115 0.01150.0000 0.0115 0.0115 3.0000e-0050.0000CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrMitigated 1.3219 5.0000e-005 5.9100e-0030.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005 2.0000e-0052.0000e-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 & Development2.19185e+0060.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator850811 0.0000 0.0000Land Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrCity Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0115 0.0115 3.0000e-0050.0000 0.01233.0000e-0050.0000 0.0123Total 1.3219 5.0000e-005 5.9100e-0030.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005 0.00002.0000e-0052.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0115 0.01150.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005Landscaping 5.4000e-0045.0000e-005 5.9100e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products1.1639 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.1575N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4MitigatedROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0115 0.0115 3.0000e-0050.0000 0.01233.0000e-0050.0000 0.0123Total 1.3219 5.0000e-005 5.9100e-0030.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005 0.00002.0000e-0052.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0115 0.01150.0000 2.0000e-0052.0000e-005Landscaping 5.4000e-0045.0000e-005 5.9100e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products1.1639 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.1575CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO6.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000Land Use MgaltonMT/yrCity Park 0 / 0.5957410.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000197.43617.2 Water by Land UseUnmitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eUnmitigated 46.0176 4.7265 0.1116CategorytonMT/yrMitigated 46.0176 4.7265 0.1116 197.43617.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures WaterTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied8.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures WasteCategory/Year0.1116 197.4361Total 46.0176 4.7265 0.1116 197.4361Research & Development145.05 / 0 46.0176 4.72650.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000Land Use MgaltonMT/yrCity Park 0 / 0.5957410.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000MitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.1116 197.4361Total 46.0176 4.7265 0.1116 197.4361Research & Development145.05 / 0 46.0176 4.7265 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedMitigated0.0000 11.2751Total 4.5592 0.2694 0.0000 11.2952Research & Development22.42 4.5511 0.26900.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000Land Use tonstonMT/yrCity Park 0.04 8.1200e-0034.8000e-004 0.0000 0.020111.29528.2 Waste by Land UseUnmitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated 4.5592 0.2694 0.0000tonMT/yr Mitigated 4.5592 0.2694 0.0000 11.2952Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied10.1 Stationary SourcesBoiler Rating Fuel TypeUser Defined EquipmentEquipment Type NumberBoilersEquipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/YearLoad Factor Fuel TypeEmergency Generator 1 1 50 3753 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 11.2751Total 4.5592 0.2694 0.0000 11.2952Research & Development22.42 4.5511 0.26900.0000 0.0000Other Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000Land Use tonstonMT/yrCity Park 0.04 8.1200e-0034.8000e-004 0.0000 0.0201Waste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/18/2021 9:34 AM580 Dubuque R&D - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied11.0 Vegetation71.4566 71.4566 0.0100 0.0000 71.70710.0100 0.0000 71.7071Total 0.1540 0.6886 0.3926 7.4000e-004 0.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.00000.0227 0.0227 0.0000 71.4566 71.45667.4000e-004 0.0227 0.0227Emergency Generator - Diesel (750 9999 HP)0.1540 0.6886 0.3926N2O CO2eEquipment Type tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated/MitigatedROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5 Attachment 3: EMFAC2021 Calculations PollutantsROG NOx CO SO2Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total NBio‐ CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eYEAR20220.0421 0.6828 0.6582 0.0039 0.1318 0.0322 0.1641 0.0198 0.0136 0.0335 384.5333 0.0480 0.0515 401.068120230.0418 0.6668 0.7066 0.0042 0.1481 0.0356 0.1837 0.0223 0.0149 0.0371 424.6888 0.0528 0.0568 442.938420240.0132 0.2153 0.2303 0.0014 0.0503 0.0120 0.0623 0.0076 0.0050 0.0126 141.5940 0.0173 0.0189 147.667720220.0301 0.1226 0.1839 0.0004 0.0109 0.0023 0.0132 0.0016 0.0010 0.0027 36.4283 0.0069 0.0053 38.180120230.0314 0.1298 0.1982 0.0004 0.0122 0.0025 0.0148 0.0018 0.0011 0.0029 40.1238 0.0078 0.0058 42.049920240.0100 0.0430 0.0642 0.0001 0.0041 0.0009 0.0050 0.0006 0.0004 0.0010 13.3828 0.0025 0.0019 14.0223Summary of Construction Traffic Emissions (EMFAC2021) TonsCriteria PollutantsToxic Air Contaminants (1.0 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 VMTDemolition 8 0 40 0 11 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 432 0 220Site Preparation 10 0 40 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 432 0 0Soldier Piles/Micropiles172 78 4300 1950 0 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 46440 14235 0Dewatering 34 0 17612 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 190209.6 0 0Trenching/Foundation 5 0 700 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 7560 0 0Soil Remediation 5 0 240 0 9,502 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 2592 0 190040Grading 15 0 720 0 7,250 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 7776 0 145000Building Construction 172 78 24080 10920 0 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT260064 79716 0Building Interior 34 0 4624 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 49939.2 0 0Paving/landscaping/finishing13 0 585 0 40 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 6318 0 8002022 2/10/22 12/31/22 325 2332023 1/1/23 12/31/23 365 2612024 1/1/24 5/3/24 124 89814582Total WorkdaysPhase  Start Date End Date  Days/Week WorkdaysDemolition 2/10/2022 2/16/2022 5 5Site Preparation 3/10/2022 3/15/2022 5 4Soldier Piles/Micropiles4/22/2022 5/26/2022 5 25Dewatering 4/22/2022 9/21/2023 5 518Trenching/Foundation 4/28/2022 11/9/2022 5 140Soil Remediation 5/27/2022 8/2/2022 5 48Grading 5/27/2022 8/2/2022 5 48Building Construction 7/14/2022 1/25/2023 5 140Building Interior 8/10/2023 2/15/2024 5 136Paving/landscaping/finishing3/4/2024 5/3/2024 5 45Number of Days Per YearCalEEMod Construction Inputs Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.1) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2022Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits:  miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURNRegion Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips Energy ConNOx_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 0 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 0 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 0 1.845139 10.30429 0 0.002051 0.011217 0 0.009 0.0589430.00223 0.012199 0 0.036 0.168408 1557.751 8370.006 0 3.666383 25.60841 00.317558 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 0.047702 0 0.275282 0.001241 0 0.002105 0.002 0.002347 0.00135 0 0.002289 0.008 0.006707 282.9533 0 72.26541 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 0.002797 0 0.000714San Mateo 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 888.5395 22501.88 22501.88 0 3790.786 0 0.240012 0 0 0.015881 0 0 0.002 0.002391 0.016599 0 0 0.008 0.006831 236.6875 0 0 0.001267 0 0 0.03729 0 0 0.02727000000.031045000000.0031 0.330004 0 0 0.002243 0 0San Mateo 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 14591.4 568258.7 0 568258.7 72996.66 219394.70000000.002 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 36793.12 0.003286 0 0.117199 0.000663 0 0.002168 0.002 0.001311 0.000722 0 0.002358 0.008 0.003747 137.9916 0 66.6249 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 0.205923 0 1.37819 0.001364 0 0.000659San Mateo 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 24136.47 736196.1 736196.1 0 109571 0 0.134919 0 0.395074 0.001791 0 0.002798 0.002 0.002838 0.001948 0 0.003043 0.008 0.008107 332.0233 0 88.05436 0.00631 0 0.109218 0.009543 0 0.038745 0.028415 0 0.569782 0.157522 0.456069 2.467901 0.041436 00.623836 0.157522 0.456069 2.467901 0.036499 1.368916 0 5.624448 0.003282 0 0.000871San Mateo 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 8.510916 119.4982 119.4982 0 25.11455 0 1.690269 0 0 0.241464 0 0 0.002 0.00334 0.252382 0 0 0.008 0.009543 418.5155 0 0 0.014886 0 0 0.065937 0 0 0.320488000000.364855000000.0031 1.709562 0 0 0.003966 0 0San Mateo 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 61.93893 2054.9 0 2054.9 294.187 793.36110000000.002 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 133.7567 0.003074 0 0.117199 0.000413 0 0.001456 0.002 0.001322 0.000449 0 0.001583 0.008 0.003777 129.0739 0 73.49717 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 0.192615 0 1.37819 0.001276 0 0.000727San Mateo 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 128775.8 4489208 4489208 0 617258.5 0 0.062575 0 0.324659 0.001272 0 0.002033 0.002 0.002716 0.001384 0 0.002212 0.008 0.007761 346.2249 0 88.33688 0.002639 0 0.081429 0.005428 0 0.036476 0.010335 0 0.378106 0.068121 0.172205 1.07279 0.015078 00.413978 0.068121 0.172205 1.07279 0.03686 0.748119 0 3.725451 0.0034230 0.000873San Mateo 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 498.9179 17455.1 17455.10 2406.111 0 0.047726 0 0 0.005147 0 0 0.002 0.002738 0.00538 0 0 0.008 0.007822 319.776 0 0 0.000624 0 0 0.050381 0 0 0.013436000000.015295000000.0031 0.124515 0 0 0.00303 0 0San Mateo 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 502.691 16536.35 0 16536.35 2591.33 6384.3940000000.002 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 6080.728 0.003173 0 0.117199 0.000533 0 0.001824 0.002 0.001316 0.00058 0 0.001984 0.008 0.003761 133.2387 0 79.72461 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 0.19883 0 1.37819 0.001317 0 0.000788San Mateo 2022 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 10003.64 379521.5 379521.5 0 149039.3 0 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 0 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 0.100489 0.020757 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 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 0.1611540.042451 0.223651 2.256912 0.047503 0.60766 0.176444 0.042451 0.2236512.256912 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 0 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 0.1198070.032933 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 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 1.557156 3.559039 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 0.082284 0 0.405736 0.001302 0 0.002201 0.002 0.002736 0.001416 0 0.002394 0.008 0.007817 417.1287 0 107.0056 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 0.004124 0 0.001058San Mateo 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1048.144 37479.46 37479.46 0 5036.896 0 0.047538 0 0 0.004777 0 0 0.002 0.002777 0.004993 0 0 0.008 0.007934 415.9683 0 0 0.000486 0 0 0.065536 0 0 0.010456000000.011904000000.0031 0.180998 0 0 0.003942 0 0San Mateo 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 497.6274 16375.41 0 16375.41 2565.598 6322.260000000.002 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 3280.032 0.003248 0 0.117199 0.000662 0 0.002216 0.002 0.001313 0.00072 0 0.00241 0.008 0.003752 136.3969 0 99.02064 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 0.203543 0 1.37819 0.001348 0 0.000979San Mateo 2022 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 751.6488 7043.926 7043.926 0 75.19494 0 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 0.019260 0.000319San Mateo 2022 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 300.3894 3250.689 3250.6890 30.03894 0 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 0.604094 0.088245 0.46581 0.00141 0 0.000575 0.003 0.015756 0.001534 0 0.000625 0.012 0.045017 1795.462 537.4412 47.64422 0.0196630.256996 0.051354 0.028235 0.007106 0.034029 0.098372 1.009116 0.288081 0.038151 0.314095 2.937981 0.143545 1.4725 0.315413 0.038151 0.3140952.937981 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 0 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 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 00.207263 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 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 0.166832 0.02655 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 0 1.072703 6.342591 1.429669 0.010592 0.00365 0 0.003 0.017420.011071 0.003815 0 0.012 0.04977 1257.365 1266.668 0 0.001405 0.014292 00.198098 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 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 00.218088 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 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 0 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 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 0.052732 0 0.593554 0.000924 0 0.000101 0.002073 0.032333 0.001005 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 0 2.903167 0 0 0.007622 0 0 0.007913 0.0385 0.007966 0 0 0.0316520.11 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 8.074811 26.705280000000.009 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 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 (v1.0.1) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2023Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits:  miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURNRegion Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips Energy ConNOx_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 0 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 0 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 9.636589 75.429020000000.008666 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 0 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 00.310391 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 0.042338 0 0.260506 0.001198 0 0.002031 0.002 0.002348 0.001303 0 0.002208 0.008 0.006708 278.3785 0 70.81713 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 0.002752 0 0.0007San Mateo 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 833.7612 19906.52 19906.52 0 3528.191 0 0.213764 0 0 0.014362 0 0 0.002 0.002398 0.015012 0 0 0.008 0.006851 234.8149 0 0 0.001164 0 0 0.036995 0 0 0.02507000000.02854000000.0031 0.317118 0 0 0.002225 0 0San Mateo 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 16299 630419.6 0 630419.6 81240.99 2433940000000.002 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 40115.53 0.003199 0 0.117199 0.000615 0 0.002065 0.002 0.001318 0.000669 0 0.002246 0.008 0.003766 134.3501 0 65.86248 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 0.200492 0 1.37819 0.001328 0 0.000651San Mateo 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 24557.61 732297.8 732297.8 0 111855.3 0 0.11638 0 0.364578 0.001649 0 0.002601 0.002 0.002829 0.001794 0 0.002828 0.008 0.008082 326.1114 0 85.73673 0.005448 0 0.099842 0.008499 0 0.037022 0.024289 0 0.513929 0.14557 0.416379 2.294434 0.0354350 0.562687 0.14557 0.416379 2.294434 0.037022 1.217988 0 5.093009 0.003224 0 0.000848San Mateo 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 7.655601 101.9185 101.9185 0 22.20173 0 1.676086 0 0 0.239368 0 0 0.002 0.003332 0.250191 0 0 0.008 0.00952 418.3389 0 0 0.014739 0 0 0.065909 0 0 0.317327000000.361255000000.0031 1.688168 0 0 0.003964 0 0San Mateo 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 74.62311 2574.77 0 2574.77 357.9526 994.07360000000.002 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 236.4901 0.002958 0 0.117199 0.000383 0 0.001401 0.002 0.001331 0.000416 0 0.001524 0.008 0.003802 124.2265 0 72.42832 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 0.185385 0 1.37819 0.001228 0 0.000716San Mateo 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 139222.3 4716888 4716888 0 668266.1 0 0.05408 0 0.29713 0.001207 0 0.001949 0.002 0.002716 0.001313 0 0.002119 0.008 0.007759 339.1094 0 86.14007 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 0.0033520 0.000852San Mateo 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 541.6894 18280.98 18280.98 0 2609.031 0 0.042759 0 0 0.004694 0 0 0.002 0.002739 0.004906 0 0 0.008 0.007825 314.2391 0 0 0.000594 0 0 0.049508 0 0 0.012791000000.014562000000.0031 0.121058 0 0 0.002978 0 0San Mateo 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 855.0521 26877.43 026877.43 4389.934 10376.910000000.002 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 8238.424 0.00307 0 0.1171990.000478 0 0.001688 0.002 0.001325 0.00052 0 0.001836 0.008 0.003785 128.9014 0 78.74622 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 0.192361 0 1.37819 0.001274 0 0.000778San Mateo 2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 10572.08 392533.1 392533.1 0 157508.2 0 0.12528 0.035112 0.59784 0.00142 0 0.000253 0.002 0.0273 0.001545 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 0.036924 0.198922 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 0 1.224717 1.76206 0 0.0273 0.026942 0 0.003 0.0273 0.0285340.02816 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 0.144 0.03443 0.605262 0.001368 0 0.000226 0.002 0.03185 0.001487 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 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 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 0.037735 0 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 0.068743 0 0.362909 0.001222 0 0.002069 0.002 0.002734 0.001329 0 0.002251 0.008 0.00781 408.872 0 104.3819 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 0.004042 0 0.001032San Mateo 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1107.903 37908.13 37908.13 0 5305.818 0 0.04176 0 0 0.004328 0 0 0.002 0.002788 0.004524 0 0 0.008 0.007965 410.1053 0 0 0.000449 0 0 0.064612 0 0 0.009665000000.011002000000.0031 0.175602 0 0 0.003886 0 0San Mateo 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 906.5115 28548.82 0 28548.82 4657.021 11022.20000000.002 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 4258.442 0.003136 0 0.117199 0.000578 0 0.002002 0.002 0.001322 0.000628 0 0.002177 0.008 0.003776 131.6991 0 97.50736 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 0.196536 0 1.37819 0.001302 0 0.000964San Mateo 2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 774.8115 7442.976 7442.976 0 77.51215 0 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 0 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 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 0.015519 0.261469 0.049092 0.023565 0.00737 0.034436 0.076573 1.012695 0.270574 0.033571 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 0 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 25.56596 47.283110000000.003 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 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 0.308106 0.065063 0.369453 0.001 0 0.000287 0.003 0.01568 0.001088 0 0.000312 0.012 0.044799 1742.276 373.6354 30.27704 0.0095950.205564 0.033157 0.017281 0.005903 0.031894 0.045405 0.746279 0.163878 0.026481 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 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 0.232948 1.556882 0 0.000856 0.003435 0 0.003 0.0161480.000931 0.003736 0 0.012 0.046137 1029.36 1194.248 0 0.766347 4.477255 00.209842 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 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 0 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 0.600564 0.506850000000.003 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 0.556332 5.264261 0 0.003378 0.011516 0 0.003 0.0157210.003674 0.012524 0 0.012 0.044917 1258.036 4080.42 0 3.408583 15.17474 00.256459 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 0.037017 0 0.578233 0.000989 0 0.000127 0.002073 0.032333 0.001076 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 0 2.897593 0 0 0.007619 0 0 0.007913 0.0385 0.007964 0 0 0.031652 0.11 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 8.074811 26.705280000000.009 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 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 (v1.0.1) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2024Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits:  miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURNRegion Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips Energy ConNOx_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 0 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 0 2.758523 46.67792 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 0.0012640.157243 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 41.8342 680.31720000000.008582 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 0 1.492552 9.520927 0 0.001788 0.012243 0 0.009 0.0593360.001944 0.013315 0 0.036 0.169533 1498.953 8407.645 0 3.081874 24.138740 0.305571 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 0.038087 0 0.247841 0.001162 0 0.001964 0.002 0.002348 0.001263 0 0.002136 0.008 0.006709 273.8201 0 69.41898 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 0.0027070 0.000686San Mateo 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 770.443 17557.03 17557.030 3247.138 0 0.188593 0 0 0.01271 0 0 0.002 0.002404 0.013285 0 0 0.008 0.006869 232.7779 0 0 0.001054 0 0 0.036674 0 0 0.022696000000.025838000000.0031 0.304144 0 0 0.002206 0 0San Mateo 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 17934.86 689392.1 0 689392.1 89072.05 266162.30000000.002 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 42699.07 0.003125 0 0.117199 0.000577 0 0.001988 0.002 0.001324 0.000628 0 0.002162 0.008 0.003783 131.2036 0 65.11921 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 0.1958 0 1.37819 0.001297 0 0.000644San Mateo 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 25010.05 728708.6 728708.6 0 114230.1 0 0.101175 0 0.337766 0.001531 0 0.002433 0.002 0.002823 0.001665 0 0.002647 0.008 0.008066 320.3175 0 83.57506 0.004741 0 0.091509 0.007635 0 0.035447 0.020943 0 0.464929 0.13393 0.378571 2.119435 0.030557 0 0.509038 0.13393 0.378571 2.119435 0.03751 1.098083 0 4.642443 0.003167 0 0.000826San Mateo 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6.907674 87.50597 87.50597 0 19.69868 0 1.656035 0 0 0.236493 0 0 0.002 0.003323 0.247186 0 0 0.008 0.009495 417.763 0 0 0.014564 0 0 0.065819 0 0 0.313559000000.356966000000.0031 1.668132 0 0 0.003959 0 0San Mateo 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 91.59654 3278.131 03278.131 443.5442 1265.6290000000.002 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 363.5237 0.002869 0 0.117199 0.000364 0 0.001376 0.002 0.001338 0.000396 0 0.001496 0.008 0.003823 120.4792 0 71.41059 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 0.179795 0 1.37819 0.001191 0 0.000706San Mateo 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 149536 4914901 49149010 718035.6 0 0.047837 0 0.275637 0.001155 0 0.001881 0.002 0.002719 0.001256 0 0.002046 0.008 0.007768 332.6183 0 84.15109 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 0.003288 00.000832San Mateo 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 582.1748 18954.02 18954.02 0 2798.233 0 0.039602 0 0 0.004525 0 0 0.002 0.002742 0.00473 0 0 0.008 0.007835 308.9591 0 0 0.000583 0 0 0.048677 0 0 0.012549000000.014287000000.0031 0.119356 0 0 0.002928 0 0San Mateo 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1250.957 37598.89 037598.89 6394.245 14516.270000000.002 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 10124.45 0.002991 0 0.117199 0.000445 0 0.001613 0.002 0.001331 0.000484 0 0.001754 0.008 0.003803 125.6019 0 77.89253 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 0.18744 0 1.37819 0.001242 0 0.00077San Mateo 2024 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 11110.29 401258.4 401258.4 0 165526.8 0 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 0.0055570.107506 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 0 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 0.098498 0.01998 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 3530.642 794.6546 2311.1670000000.002 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 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 0.0047750.10351 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 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 0.1164130.03179 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 194.8979 558.21180000000.002 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 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 0.036969 0 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 0.058434 0 0.328591 0.001156 0 0.001958 0.002 0.002737 0.001258 0 0.002129 0.008 0.007819 401.2877 0 101.9843 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 0.0039670 0.001008San Mateo 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1163.667 38157.5 38157.5 05552.1 0 0.037261 0 0 0.004001 0 0 0.002 0.002798 0.004182 0 0 0.008 0.007995404.1827 0 0 0.000421 0 0 0.063679 0 0 0.009074000000.01033000000.0031 0.171126 0 0 0.00383 0 0San Mateo 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1347.217 40547.66 0 40547.66 6889.415 15654.740000000.002 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 5602.067 0.003021 0 0.117199 0.000509 0 0.001829 0.002 0.00133 0.000553 0 0.001989 0.008 0.0038 126.8709 0 95.82464 0.000391 0 0.042289 0.000521 0 0.020188 0.00127 0 0.1766350.028115 0.024943 0.310017 0.001853 0 0.193393 0.028115 0.024943 0.310017 0.019752 0.189334 0 1.37819 0.001254 0 0.000947San Mateo 2024 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 801.8479 7786.339 7786.339 0 80.21686 0 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 0.019244 0 0.000312San Mateo 2024 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 356.6509 3693.518 3693.5180 35.66509 0 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 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 0 1.307284 13.59602 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 00.181395 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 206.3119 980.30840000000.003 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 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 00.204536 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 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 0.008478 0.205512 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 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 0.013985 0 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 17.47512 88.163310000000.003 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 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 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 0.01963 2.446302 0.087874 0.039135 0.085207 0.056875 0.09611 10.60191 0.509805 0.133122 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 0 4.696712 23.22062 0.459253 0.022409 0.023726 0 0.003 0.015721 0.023422 0.024798 0 0.012 0.044917 1144.311 2236.593 0 0.003112 0.008208 0 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 8.140217 38.578140000000.002304 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 0.535215 5.251389 0 0.003378 0.011823 0 0.003 0.0157210.003674 0.012858 0 0.012 0.044917 1247.354 4088.672 0 3.35032 15.01581 00.254281 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 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 0.0465380.004853 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 0.375565 0 0 0.006827 0 0 0.008097 0.0385 0.007136 0 0 0.032388 0.11 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 3851.303 148.3176 6713.7620000000.007366 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 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 (v1.0.1) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2025Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits:  miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURNRegion Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips Energy ConNOx_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 0 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 0.8007890 0.000585 0.032327 0.240688 2.160104 0.045 33.0787 0 5.031545 0.021984 00.000514San Mateo 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1328.41 119560.7 119560.7 0 14621.91 0 2.632025 46.34757 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 96.27797 1681.6010000000.008517 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 0 1.331412 8.859598 0 0.001692 0.012232 0 0.009 0.0601480.00184 0.013304 0 0.036 0.171851 1473.274 8308.135 0 2.792898 22.57518 00.300337 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 0.034615 0 0.235851 0.001128 0 0.001911 0.002 0.002349 0.0012270 0.002078 0.008 0.00671 269.175 0 68.0394 0.001838 0 0.063866 0.004 0 0.030182 0.006975 0 0.296397 0.080623 0.207795 1.246636 0.010177 0 0.324517 0.080623 0.207795 1.246636 0.036919 0.602664 0 3.018989 0.002661 0 0.000673San Mateo 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 710.5834 15407.46 15407.46 0 2980.227 0 0.166025 0 0 0.01142 0 0 0.002 0.00241 0.011937 0 0 0.008 0.006884 230.6071 0 0 0.00097 0 0 0.036332 0 0 0.020877000000.023767000000.0031 0.292415 0 0 0.002185 0 0San Mateo 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 19564.98 745853.8 0 745853.8 96825.51 287961.10000000.002 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 44990.77 0.003049 0 0.117199 0.000543 0 0.001919 0.002 0.00133 0.000591 0 0.002087 0.008 0.0038 128.0305 0 64.36156 0.00039 0 0.041777 0.000513 0 0.019713 0.001281 0 0.1766350.037974 0.033851 0.389847 0.00187 0 0.193393 0.037974 0.033851 0.389847 0.019071 0.191067 0 1.37819 0.001266 0 0.000636San Mateo 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 25473.09 722986.2 722986.2 0 116608.1 0 0.088465 0 0.313819 0.001428 0 0.002288 0.002 0.002819 0.001554 0 0.002489 0.008 0.008056 314.602 0 81.51978 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 0.00311 0 0.000806San Mateo 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6.297196 75.91061 75.91061 0 17.6629 0 1.633241 0 0 0.233227 0 0 0.002 0.003314 0.243773 0 0 0.008 0.009467 417.0098 0 0 0.014366 0 0 0.0657 0 0 0.309282000000.352097000000.0031 1.645498 0 0 0.003951 0 0San Mateo 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 114.3013 4207.979 04207.979 557.9394 1624.6270000000.002 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 516.46 0.002786 0 0.1171990.00035 0 0.001361 0.002 0.001345 0.000381 0 0.00148 0.008 0.003842 117.005 0 70.40325 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 0.174613 0 1.37819 0.001157 0 0.000696San Mateo 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 159673.6 5072144 5072144 0 766397.2 0 0.043155 0 0.259038 0.001111 0 0.001824 0.002 0.002725 0.001208 0 0.001983 0.008 0.007785 326.5862 0 82.3296 0.001976 0 0.066383 0.004349 0 0.031999 0.007386 0 0.299178 0.056614 0.145016 0.911896 0.010777 00.327563 0.056614 0.145016 0.911896 0.039093 0.616696 0 3.075211 0.003229 0 0.000814San Mateo 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 618.9276 19447.24 19447.24 0 2972.356 0 0.035316 0 0 0.004147 0 0 0.002 0.002746 0.004334 0 0 0.008 0.007845 303.5847 0 0 0.00056 0 0 0.04783 0 0 0.012057000000.013726000000.0031 0.116837 0 0 0.002877 0 0San Mateo 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1700.502 48819.4 0 48819.4 8654.222 18848.320000000.002 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 12006.99 0.002916 0 0.117199 0.00042 0 0.00156 0.002 0.001337 0.000457 0 0.001696 0.008 0.003821 122.4321 0 77.02717 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 0.182712 0 1.37819 0.00121 0 0.000761San Mateo 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 11613.82 405927.2 405927.2 0 173028.5 0 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 0.1318540.03142 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 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 0.0978650.019693 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 2203.775 5753.3750000000.002 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 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 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 2145.224 536.9131 1383.6820000000.002 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 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 0.0364190 0.007111 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 0.050748 0 0.301319 0.001104 0 0.001871 0.002 0.002743 0.0012 0 0.002035 0.008 0.007838 394.1876 0 99.80167 0.002219 0 0.074825 0.004749 0 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 0.003897 00.000987San Mateo 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1216.213 38222.55 38222.55 0 5783.756 0 0.033166 0 0 0.003666 0 0 0.002 0.002807 0.003832 0 0 0.008 0.008021 398.1179 0 0 0.000395 0 0 0.062724 0 0 0.008497000000.009674000000.0031 0.166794 0 0 0.003772 0 0San Mateo 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1824.97 52408.32 0 52408.32 9288.746 20233.940000000.002 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 6989.887 0.002924 0 0.117199 0.000462 0 0.001715 0.002 0.001337 0.000502 0 0.001865 0.008 0.003821 122.7729 0 94.34392 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 0.18322 0 1.37819 0.001214 0 0.000933San Mateo 2025 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 830.5401 8053.177 8053.177 0 83.08723 0 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 00.161711 8.452557 0.201566 3.076801 0.044943 0.905305 0 3.320123 0.01924 0 0.00031San Mateo 2025 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 384.5125 3863.222 3863.2220 38.45125 0 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 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 0 1.188939 13.12716 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 02407.793 583.4118 2680.2930000000.003 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 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 00.203285 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 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 0.007842 0.204874 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 0.812155 5.594758 1.4975 0.009252 0.003188 0 0.003 0.017380.009671 0.003332 0 0.012 0.049657 1227.827 1209.887 0 0.000915 0.0141610 0.193445 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 42.89613 205.5650000000.003 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 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 00.202142 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 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 0 4.387797 22.54247 0.476886 0.020913 0.021713 0 0.003 0.015721 0.021858 0.022694 0 0.012 0.044917 1138.881 2225.679 0 0.002986 0.008120 0.179431 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 17.7986 83.108220000000.002318 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 0.515656 5.239615 0 0.003378 0.012103 0 0.003 0.0157210.003674 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 0.03738 0 0.492117 0.001105 0 0.000151 0.002073 0.0323330.001202 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 0.009840 0.000397San Mateo 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 278.2185 21526.83 21526.83 0 1112.874 0 0.375553 0 0 0.006827 0 0 0.008097 0.0385 0.007136 0 0 0.032387 0.11 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 03870.538 149.2699 6747.2930000000.007369 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 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 Season EmissionType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHACH4_IDLEX00000.00509 0.002914 0.014756 0.267799843 0.006567 0 0 0.096127 0ACH4_RUNEX0.00162 0.0041 0.00193 0.002132 0.005098 0.004948 0.010272 0.2505203760.007197 0.54719132 0.140818 0.080164 0.008107ACH4_STREX0.058192 0.083348 0.065143 0.071971 0.019431 0.010676 0.010733 5.34126E‐07 0.010159 0.006413618 0.16646 0.008569 0.024689ACO_IDLEX00000.200102 0.144548 0.670548 4.674714728 0.489029 0 0 2.380991 0ACO_RUNEX0.533291 0.987128 0.602996 0.617373 0.682501 0.428407 0.331755 1.646685682 0.217767 6.298686532 10.66577 1.391898 0.700626ACO_STREX2.734945 4.216581 3.011981 3.098359 2.39397 1.326451 1.259096 0.027273177 1.051096 0.865678808 7.691483 1.225133 2.269732ACO2_NBIO_IDLEX00008.287123 13.09091 147.6661 768.7716723 90.15686 0 0 204.3512 0ACO2_NBIO_RUNEX239.848 311.9829 320.5917 383.6805 745.6768 785.9693 1250.179 1745.927029 1296.627 1061.974886 186.4281 958.4095 1667.344ACO2_NBIO_STREX62.52193 81.08968 81.05668 96.39616 18.86084 10.01943 10.5582 0.281822196 9.34435 5.584749803 44.64197 6.002043 21.41888ANOX_IDLEX00000.035258 0.07008 0.818136 3.946769356 0.388856 0 0 1.37311 0ANOX_RUNEX0.030637 0.087761 0.04216 0.048989 0.348047 0.468946 0.987366 2.50375798 0.721054 0.248884 0.505421 2.52561 1.150681ANOX_STREX0.213914 0.311737 0.253723 0.289292 0.389155 0.21833 1.307286 2.741148405 1.129496 0.068508137 0.117673 0.473007 0.273789APM10_IDLEX00000.000619 0.001336 0.001805 0.003026664 0.000233 0 0 0.001378 0APM10_PMBW0.006399 0.008017 0.007697 0.007724 0.077443 0.09028 0.045292 0.094175481 0.048836 0.142306362 0.012 0.044686 0.044942APM10_PMTW0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.009303 0.010607 0.012 0.034505767 0.012 0.050724608 0.004 0.010056 0.013297APM10_RUNEX0.001114 0.001565 0.001198 0.001203 0.008592 0.014571 0.011587 0.023321334 0.008293 0.004687081 0.002031 0.011362 0.016327APM10_STREX0.001913 0.002474 0.001951 0.001965 0.000165 8.04E‐05 0.000131 4.07065E‐06 9.88E‐05 2.28997E‐05 0.003719 7.9E‐05 0.000296APM25_IDLEX00000.000592 0.001278 0.001726 0.002890137 0.000223 0 0 0.001317 0APM25_PMBW0.00224 0.002806 0.002694 0.002704 0.027105 0.031598 0.015852 0.032961418 0.017092 0.049807227 0.0042 0.01564 0.01573APM25_PMTW0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002326 0.002652 0.003 0.008626442 0.003 0.012681152 0.001 0.002514 0.003324APM25_RUNEX0.001025 0.00144 0.001102 0.001108 0.008184 0.013924 0.011074 0.022306121 0.007928 0.004478818 0.001897 0.010846 0.015578APM25_STREX0.001759 0.002275 0.001794 0.001807 0.000151 7.39E‐05 0.00012 3.74281E‐06 9.08E‐05 2.10555E‐05 0.003489 7.27E‐05 0.000272AROG_DIURN0.23992 0.422505 0.185919 0.210348 0.082973 0.04954 0.024982 0.000585202 0.03104 0.021522802 3.154868 0.047869 21.0255AROG_HTSK0.073069 0.122434 0.05545 0.060196 0.022362 0.013133 0.006367 0.000175225 0.008125 0.008036694 3.548067 0.012307 5.778413AROG_IDLEX00000.020304 0.014898 0.027305 0.286668504 0.032871 0 0 0.277158 0AROG_RESTL0000000 00 0000AROG_RUNEX0.006173 0.01796 0.007248 0.008416 0.055709 0.083251 0.035544 0.031143571 0.022157 0.051233319 0.891986 0.073977 0.05614AROG_RUNLS0.186625 0.340705 0.141591 0.162153 0.122003 0.0712 0.052008 0.001304636 0.036576 0.016691129 3.701315 0.036417 0.137796AROG_STREX0.269607 0.418278 0.293472 0.342868 0.093842 0.051791 0.057459 2.89774E‐06 0.050342 0.024086249 1.219242 0.049676 0.100971ASO2_IDLEX00008.08E‐05 0.000126 0.001368 0.006392287 0.00085 0 0 0.001872 0ASO2_RUNEX0.002371 0.003084 0.003169 0.003791 0.007289 0.007574 0.011902 0.015292952 0.012326 0.008522909 0.001843 0.008982 0.016339ASO2_STREX0.000618 0.000802 0.000801 0.000953 0.000186 9.91E‐05 0.000104 2.7861E‐06 9.24E‐05 5.52109E‐05 0.000441 5.93E‐05 0.000212ATOG_DIURN0.23992 0.422505 0.185919 0.210348 0.082973 0.04954 0.024982 0.000585202 0.03104 0.021522802 0.07414 0.047869 21.0255ATOG_HTSK0.073069 0.122434 0.05545 0.060196 0.022362 0.013133 0.006367 0.000175225 0.008125 0.008036694 3.548067 0.012307 5.778413ATOG_IDLEX00000.028846 0.02006 0.045892 0.58212113 0.043566 0 0 0.435346 0ATOG_RESTL0000000 00 0000ATOG_RUNEX0.008994 0.026198 0.010562 0.012246 0.068434 0.096765 0.050769 0.286222734 0.032263 0.60586165 1.084139 0.168065 0.072727ATOG_RUNLS0.186625 0.340705 0.141591 0.162153 0.122003 0.0712 0.052008 0.001304636 0.036576 0.016691129 3.701315 0.036417 0.137796ATOG_STREX0.295186 0.457962 0.321315 0.375397 0.102745 0.056705 0.06291 3.17266E‐06 0.055119 0.026371411 1.325883 0.054389 0.110551A N2O_IDLEX00000.000573 0.001568 0.022543 0.125460338 0.013415 0 0 0.024817 0A N2O_RUNEX 0.003578 0.006848 0.004417 0.005335 0.035453 0.077321 0.144932 0.280344669 0.165841 0.156430799 0.036419 0.110563 0.068442A N2O_STREX 0.0275 0.033715 0.031397 0.032482 0.033192 0.017887 0.008071 5.62128E‐07 0.009875 0.009551223 0.007111 0.005665 0.030005CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Emission Factors Input FleetMixLandUseSubType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.448243 0.043109 0.27536 0.157817 0.028829 0.00633 0.008743 0.002558 0.00231 0.000743 0.0235 0.000418 0.00204 CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Fleet Mix Input Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.1) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2030Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits:  miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURNRegion Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips Energy ConNOx_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 2030 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 3.582613 348.8502 348.8502 0 71.68092 0 3.309536 0 0.000636 0.001281 0 0.000408 0.005 0.031258 0.001393 0 0.000444 0.02 0.08931 2124.112 0 48.3003 0.102341 0 7.44E‐05 0.139473 0 4.21E‐05 0.479172 0 0.000403 0.0158 0.095238 1.146877 0.699207 0 0.000441 0.0158 0.095238 1.146877 0.045 32.18037 0 4.037713 0.020999 0 0.000477San Mateo 2030 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1338.439 117080 117080 0 15181.71 0 2.116368 45.39119 3.044846 0.023283 0.023862 0 0.008615 0.030087 0.024335 0.024941 0 0.03446 0.085963 1627.718 7731.446 0 0.000972 0.162527 0 0.256448 1.218092 0 0.020928 3.49916200000.023825 3.9835300000.207747 0.090912 50.23689 0 0.015414 0.073212 0San Mateo 2030 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 84.88807 7748.726 07748.726 800.5398 14460.230000000.00845 0.017769 0 0 0 0.033801 0.0507690000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2030 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 216.9868 13750.35 13750.35 0 1391.47 0 0.831786 6.734329 0 0.001446 0.012428 0 0.009 0.062879 0.001573 0.013516 0 0.036 0.179654 1389.59 7977.287 0 1.838591 17.41083 0 0.283277 1.626222 0 0.037223 0.26742100001.888896 17.7902900000.693529 12.98287 57.902150000San Mateo 2030 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 237797.8 6358120 6358120 0 1114767 0 0.025015 0 0.198441 0.00084 0 0.0015 0.002 0.002348 0.000914 00.001631 0.008 0.006709 250.3795 0 62.47074 0.001264 0 0.048749 0.0033270 0.026593 0.004452 0 0.219797 0.064961 0.182842 1.100035 0.006497 0 0.24065 0.064961 0.182842 1.100035 0.039859 0.49519 0 2.387223 0.002475 0 0.000618San Mateo 2030 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 401.2092 8094.892 8094.892 0 1723.63 0 0.081629 0 0 0.005614 0 0 0.002 0.002417 0.005867 0 0 0.008 0.006907 217.7249 0 0 0.000572 0 0 0.034303 0 0 0.012309000000.014013000000.0031 0.228322 0 0 0.002063 0 0San Mateo 2030 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 25244.08 809588.1 0 809588.1 122638.4 312567.80000000.002 0.001533 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043810000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2030 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb9770.495 287561.1 127243.4 160317.7 40401 48420.73 0.002843 0 0.117199 0.000375 0 0.001465 0.002 0.001348 0.000407 0 0.001593 0.008 0.00385 119.3761 0 61.72963 0.000352 0 0.040464 0.000449 0 0.018494 0.001195 0 0.1766350.03873 0.045962 0.467089 0.001743 0 0.193393 0.03873 0.045962 0.4670890.018225 0.17816 0 1.37819 0.00118 0 0.00061San Mateo 2030 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 27717.91 705667.7 705667.7 0 127669.4 0 0.047693 0 0.23518 0.000977 0 0.001648 0.002 0.002822 0.001063 0 0.001793 0.008 0.008064 291.8441 0 73.503 0.00227 0 0.057547 0.004614 0 0.028888 0.009274 0 0.271146 0.085215 0.246386 1.458315 0.013533 0 0.29687 0.085215 0.246386 1.458315 0.039865 0.675828 0 2.884818 0.0028850 0.000727San Mateo 2030 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 0.204115 6.131891 6.131891 0 1.004394 0 0.025448 0 0 0.003365 0 0 0.002 0.002682 0.003517 0 0 0.008 0.007662 360.704 0 0 0.000511 0 0 0.056829 0 0 0.011001000000.012524000000.0031 0.101404 0 0 0.003418 0 0San Mateo 2030 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 315.4332 10759.94 010759.94 1561.79 4154.2260000000.002 0.00153 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043720000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2030 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb248.8694 7950.15 3286.476 4663.674 1029.075 1408.569 0.002656 0 0.117199 0.000235 0 0.000982 0.002 0.001357 0.000256 0 0.001068 0.008 0.003878 111.5238 0 67.77418 0.000329 0 0.040538 0.000421 0 0.018562 0.001116 0 0.176635 0.022993 0.019942 0.267154 0.001629 0 0.193393 0.022993 0.019942 0.267154 0.017362 0.166441 0 1.37819 0.001103 0 0.00067San Mateo 2030 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 206077.5 5643289 5643289 0 980667.9 0 0.031039 0 0.220236 0.000827 0 0.001417 0.002 0.002768 0.000899 0 0.001541 0.008 0.007907 305.2696 0 76.05021 0.001503 0 0.052526 0.003653 0 0.029181 0.005296 0 0.229711 0.045237 0.123667 0.765395 0.0077280 0.251505 0.045237 0.123667 0.765395 0.040897 0.539909 0 2.545867 0.003018 0 0.000752San Mateo 2030 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 779.569 21227.36 21227.36 0 3709.708 0 0.028723 0 0 0.003778 0 0 0.002 0.002772 0.003949 0 0 0.008 0.00792 283.3526 0 0 0.000535 0 0 0.044642 0 0 0.011525000000.013121000000.0031 0.115181 0 0 0.002685 0 0San Mateo 2030 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 4330.718 103349.1 0103349.1 21553.59 39901.280000000.002 0.001531 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043740000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2030 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb3821.263 114216.7 48686.66 65530.03 15800.92 19792.02 0.002739 0 0.117199 0.000291 0 0.001179 0.002 0.001354 0.000317 0 0.001283 0.008 0.003869 114.9986 0 74.21213 0.000338 0 0.040354 0.00043 0 0.018393 0.001151 0 0.176635 0.026073 0.02498 0.30357 0.00168 0 0.193393 0.026073 0.02498 0.303570.017899 0.171627 0 1.37819 0.001137 0 0.000734San Mateo 2030 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 13418.94 401266.7 401266.7 0 199922.2 0 0.04859 0.028514 0.462341 0.001251 0 0.000149 0.002 0.0273 0.001361 0 0.000162 0.008 0.078 782.2571 111.312 25.41512 0.002474 0.092233 0.022399 0.003012 0.002564 0.040565 0.010703 0.327199 0.105404 0.022577 0.12944 1.313798 0.015618 0.477448 0.115404 0.022577 0.12944 1.313798 0.045 0.67997 3.773798 3.355298 0.007733 0.0011 0.000251San Mateo 2030 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6950.283 217964.5 217964.5 0 87425.82 0 0.484943 1.179571 0 0.017739 0.02636 0 0.003 0.0273 0.018541 0.027552 0 0.012 0.078 610.5039 119.3947 0 0.004593 0.005098 0 0.0961850.018811 0 0.098884 0.1097600000.112573 0.12495400000.209503 0.232836 0.909745 0 0.005785 0.001131 0San Mateo 2030 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1651.837 70758.490 70758.49 23140.54 46352.960000000.002 0.01365 0 0 0 0.008 0.0390000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2030 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1516.427 44034.41 44034.41 0 22592.5 0 0.0535 0.026469 0.446387 0.001188 0 0.000128 0.002 0.03185 0.001292 0 0.000139 0.008 0.091 883.1295 128.7905 24.14624 0.002097 0.08544 0.021117 0.003676 0.002338 0.038045 0.00861 0.303836 0.099505 0.023317 0.135292 1.428649 0.012564 0.443356 0.108945 0.023317 0.135292 1.428649 0.045 0.63201 3.776933 3.316614 0.008731 0.001273 0.000239San Mateo 2030 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3226.044 98642.37 98642.37 0 40579.57 0 0.436422 1.156649 0 0.01874 0.026765 0 0.003 0.03185 0.019587 0.027975 0 0.012 0.091 713.7283 191.5832 0 0.004866 0.005098 0 0.112448 0.030184 0 0.104751 0.1097600000.119253 0.12495400000.212304 0.238694 0.909745 0 0.006763 0.001815 0San Mateo 2030 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 416.7471 17085.750 17085.75 5526.66 11020.920000000.002 0.015925 0 0 0 0.008 0.04550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2030 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 17265.42 85331.57 85331.57 0 34530.84 0 0.471636 0 0.087961 0.00193 0 0.003402 0.001 0.0042 0.002069 0 0.003639 0.004 0.012 185.2558 0 39.68002 0.129549 0 0.143907 0.0351040 0.005584 0.790266 0 1.025021 3.535952 3.670486 2.694632 0.977152 0 1.115488 3.535952 3.670486 2.694632 0.00908 9.714966 0 7.581403 0.001831 0 0.000392San Mateo 2030 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 115764.2 3248131 3248131 0 549832.1 0 0.032414 0 0.238074 0.000811 0 0.001423 0.002 0.002792 0.000882 0 0.001547 0.008 0.007976 368.7759 0 92.22249 0.00155 0 0.05581 0.003744 0 0.030164 0.005553 0 0.251972 0.048156 0.134906 0.832269 0.008103 0 0.275878 0.048156 0.134906 0.832269 0.040906 0.545181 0 2.607134 0.0036460 0.000912San Mateo 2030 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1415.877 38111.74 38111.74 0 6658.508 0 0.017624 0 0 0.002054 0 0 0.002 0.002838 0.002147 0 0 0.008 0.008109 372.2787 0 0 0.000277 0 0 0.058653 0 0 0.005968000000.006794000000.0031 0.147116 0 0 0.003528 0 0San Mateo 2030 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 4329.635 102706.8 0 102706.8 21508.26 39653.320000000.002 0.001532 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043770000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2030 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb2286.849 70894.89 30074.66 40820.23 9456.121 12328.93 0.002725 0 0.117199 0.000297 0 0.001215 0.002 0.001355 0.000323 0 0.001322 0.008 0.003872 114.4453 0 90.22943 0.000338 0 0.040515 0.000432 0 0.018541 0.001145 0 0.176635 0.026805 0.026275 0.314563 0.001671 0 0.193393 0.026805 0.026275 0.314563 0.017817 0.170801 0 1.37819 0.001131 0 0.000892San Mateo 2030 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 975.2695 8905.399 8905.399 0 97.56596 0 0.146497 0 0.389106 0.001397 0 0.00035 0.003 0.015756 0.001519 0 0.00038 0.012 0.045017 1945.035 0 30.49184 0.005338 0 0.03291 0.013993 0 0.045078 0.017368 0 0.125455 4.324204 0.104731 1.656784 0.025343 0 0.137357 4.324204 0.104731 1.656784 0.045 0.266588 0 2.838247 0.019229 0 0.000301San Mateo 2030 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 518.1906 4498.521 4498.5210 51.81906 0 2.677361 0 0 0.030184 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.031549 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1087.256 0 0 0.003786 0 0 0.171298 0 0 0.081505000000.092788000000.206555 0.243761 0 0 0.010302 0 0San Mateo 2030 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 896.2067 46600.57 46600.57 0 17931.3 0 0.14535 0.071332 0.336727 0.001349 0 0.000468 0.003 0.015756 0.001468 0 0.000509 0.012 0.045017 1641.475 495.3697 40.83701 0.005139 0.272865 0.039358 0.010032 0.006541 0.029695 0.022413 1.024632 0.19997 0.016844 0.142325 1.402001 0.032705 1.49514 0.218942 0.016844 0.142325 1.402001 0.045 0.405969 15.25491 4.210824 0.016228 0.004897 0.000404San Mateo 2030 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4347.362 170380.4 170380.4 0 52605.86 0 0.755775 11.60663 1.523653 0.006958 0.010527 0 0.003 0.015983 0.007273 0.011003 0 0.012 0.045667 1112.069 2136.504 0 0.000749 0.00921 0 0.175207 0.336607 0 0.016126 0.19828900000.018358 0.22573600000.215702 0.077124 7.484208 0 0.010531 0.020231 0San Mateo 2030 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 446.3324 23740.44 023740.44 6143.241 26136.710000000.003 0.007953 0 0 0 0.012 0.0227240000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2030 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 59.81429 2526.343 2526.343 0 572.8236 0 0.0963 6.310343 0 0.001402 0.020216 0 0.003 0.016078 0.001525 0.021987 0 0.012 0.045938 974.2403 5301.669 0 0.781312 15.85967 0 0.198605 1.08078 0 0.011163 0.22660300000.797386 16.1859600001.06 3.055339 39.527680000San Mateo 2030 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 235.2431 10564.99 10564.99 0 4706.745 0 0.160976 0.055683 0.334188 0.001132 0 0.000289 0.003 0.01568 0.001231 0 0.000315 0.012 0.044799 1631.402 356.5246 28.55452 0.004957 0.201951 0.030859 0.010543 0.00494 0.028192 0.021402 0.748646 0.154359 0.024573 0.126962 2.196095 0.03123 1.092423 0.169003 0.024573 0.126962 2.196095 0.045 0.436972 5.788883 3.119712 0.016128 0.003525 0.000282San Mateo 2030 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1265.064 76747.17 76747.17 0 12416.27 0 0.731147 4.662626 1.324481 0.008334 0.002706 0 0.003 0.017521 0.008711 0.002828 0 0.012 0.050059 1157.144 1158.301 0 0.000821 0.014331 0 0.182309 0.182491 0 0.017683 0.30854900000.020131 0.35125900000.218276 0.087625 5.772448 0 0.010957 0.010968 0San Mateo 2030 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 18.67716 1366.971 01366.971 373.6926 1514.3950000000.003 0.00784 0 0 0 0.012 0.0223990000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2030 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 14.94448 957.8955 957.8955 0 133.0059 0 0.101418 1.499098 0 0.001484 0.004813 0 0.003 0.0161480.001614 0.005235 0 0.012 0.046137 931.1349 1169.497 0 0.838494 3.7638150 0.189818 0.23841 0 0.01198 0.05377700000.855745 3.8412500001.06 3.385525 9.4137230000San Mateo 2030 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 87.98822 4038.39 4038.39 0 351.9529 0 0.489617 0.750616 0.559502 0.001063 0 0.000722 0.002 0.015721 0.001156 0 0.000786 0.008 0.044917 757.0149 2429.667 55.27111 0.010391 2.44431 0.075405 0.024791 0.073975 0.052746 0.050694 10.64152 0.434086 0.098112 0.31801 1.752705 0.073972 15.52808 0.47527 0.098112 0.318011.752705 0.045 1.308566 82.24088 10.22191 0.007484 0.02402 0.000546San Mateo 2030 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 160.7253 3531.519 3531.519 0 2327.302 0 2.868955 18.37325 0.553036 0.014701 0.012669 0 0.003 0.015721 0.015365 0.013242 0 0.012 0.044917 1113.173 2158.09 0 0.002281 0.007956 0 0.175381 0.340008 0 0.049109 0.171300000.055907 0.19501200000.169646 0.15856 5.305748 0 0.010541 0.020436 0San Mateo 2030 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 17.84997 651.998 0 651.998 163.1263 686.8510000000.00236 0.00786 0 0 0 0.009438 0.0224590000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2030 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 7.671522 180.9535 180.9535 0 111.0836 0 0.443878 5.198476 0 0.003378 0.013085 0 0.003 0.0157210.003674 0.014231 0 0.012 0.044917 1201.138 4122.528 0 3.098317 14.362510 0.24486 0.840404 0 0.044269 0.20521200003.16206 14.65800001.06 10.05674 24.641660000San Mateo 2030 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 62.5174 4249.774 4249.774 0 250.0696 0 0.035638 0 0.310547 0.001201 0 0.000164 0.002072 0.0323290.001307 0 0.000179 0.008288 0.09237 932.2834 0 37.52663 0.001497 0 0.032416 0.004454 0 0.04913 0.004138 0 0.115554 0.024606 0.097267 0.356985 0.006038 0 0.126517 0.024606 0.097267 0.356985 0.045 0.559001 0 5.953718 0.009217 0 0.000371San Mateo 2030 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 238.4518 18140.33 18140.33 0 953.8071 0 0.376197 0 0 0.006839 0 0 0.008109 0.0385 0.007148 0 0 0.032436 0.11 1228.547 0 0 0.003149 0 0 0.193558 0 0 0.067807000000.077193000000.22 0.077324 0 0 0.011641 0 0San Mateo 2030 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 72.67394 6853.165 06853.165 290.6957 11946.740000000.007651 0.01925 0 0 0 0.030604 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2030 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 75.54888 5381.015 5381.015 0 302.1955 0 0.055771 0 0 0.000273 0 0 0.007786 0.0385 0.000286 0 0 0.031145 0.11 1266.418 0 0 4.115508 0 0 0.258168 0 0 0.058802000004.200177000000.97 46.7678800000 Season EmissionType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHACH4_IDLEX00000.0041 0.002311 0.015963 0.229026242 0.006914 0 0 0.110559 0ACH4_RUNEX0.001091 0.002215 0.001451 0.001466 0.00289 0.003582 0.009624 0.18305022 0.010248 0.641431362 0.129549 0.072674 0.004817ACH4_STREX0.043749 0.056722 0.051039 0.052888 0.014423 0.007552 0.009135 3.05733E‐07 0.008239 0.004511552 0.143907 0.008986 0.021494ACO_IDLEX00000.183464 0.137123 0.628743 4.574443284 0.49944 0 0 2.802822 0ACO_RUNEX0.428969 0.660194 0.521738 0.516941 0.468992 0.321574 0.163527 1.442396346 0.162707 7.377393404 9.714966 0.912101 0.258927ACO_STREX2.12334 2.838305 2.46486 2.462348 2.160461 1.186135 0.977377 0.016590448 0.832894 0.828623357 7.581403 1.218105 1.853708ACO2_NBIO_IDLEX00007.483418 12.87527 130.0816 692.3906648 88.86546 0 0 200.5332 0ACO2_NBIO_RUNEX218.1367 285.5306 296.1322 352.6558 647.7805 684.09 1103.524 1514.609777 1192.98 954.9035774 185.2558 857.525 1657.153ACO2_NBIO_STREX56.37559 72.5759 74.14137 87.76861 16.36469 8.635527 9.478708 0.198459779 7.623425 5.222861474 39.68002 6.586443 19.91475ANOX_IDLEX00000.027637 0.059703 0.658867 3.566245811 0.336592 0 0 1.035723 0ANOX_RUNEX0.021508 0.04649 0.029936 0.03068 0.181449 0.284207 0.558221 1.874181967 0.646065 0.210138516 0.471636 1.45062 0.995886ANOX_STREX0.176589 0.231426 0.213197 0.224713 0.2977 0.159643 1.115695 2.649753409 1.022028 0.043221096 0.087961 0.50246 0.254132APM10_IDLEX00000.000617 0.001429 0.000636 0.00208163 0.000207 0 0 0.000758 0APM10_PMBW0.006346 0.007963 0.007767 0.007787 0.074001 0.086134 0.043306 0.093281284 0.048975 0.156110891 0.012 0.043175 0.04494APM10_PMTW0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.009264 0.01047 0.012 0.034539384 0.012 0.061827696 0.004 0.009879 0.013342APM10_RUNEX0.0008 0.001038 0.000883 0.000858 0.006648 0.01245 0.005391 0.020667549 0.00762 0.003949707 0.002069 0.007092 0.011597APM10_STREX0.001471 0.001765 0.001499 0.001469 0.000104 4.97E‐05 0.000118 1.82388E‐06 8.4E‐05 2.48573E‐05 0.003639 9.36E‐05 0.000248APM25_IDLEX00000.00059 0.001367 0.000608 0.001985313 0.000198 0 0 0.000723 0APM25_PMBW0.002221 0.002787 0.002718 0.002725 0.0259 0.030147 0.015157 0.032648449 0.017141 0.054638812 0.0042 0.015111 0.015729APM25_PMTW0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002316 0.002617 0.003 0.008634846 0.003 0.015456924 0.001 0.00247 0.003336APM25_RUNEX0.000736 0.000955 0.000812 0.00079 0.006331 0.011898 0.005147 0.019767546 0.007285 0.003772866 0.00193 0.006762 0.011058APM25_STREX0.001353 0.001623 0.001378 0.001351 9.57E‐05 4.57E‐05 0.000109 1.67699E‐06 7.72E‐05 2.28554E‐05 0.003402 8.61E‐05 0.000228AROG_DIURN0.208006 0.310821 0.155511 0.165232 0.056781 0.034294 0.016264 0.000235524 0.029304 0.012421079 2.694632 0.052216 10.81642AROG_HTSK0.057819 0.083701 0.043823 0.045503 0.014537 0.008339 0.00391 6.49199E‐05 0.00656 0.003424597 3.535952 0.011692 2.824213AROG_IDLEX00000.016598 0.012899 0.023221 0.271787437 0.032176 0 0 0.326882 0AROG_RESTL0000000 00 0000AROG_RUNEX0.003852 0.009047 0.005145 0.005303 0.037462 0.06705 0.015705 0.022524009 0.017791 0.045171786 0.790266 0.045956 0.038893AROG_RUNLS0.160749 0.241641 0.119083 0.126689 0.083346 0.048385 0.033035 0.000391321 0.033896 0.013537374 3.670486 0.037896 0.068402AROG_STREX0.197071 0.267146 0.223211 0.238678 0.067869 0.035586 0.046415 1.65627E‐06 0.04121 0.01608249 1.025021 0.051728 0.081937ASO2_IDLEX00007.29E‐05 0.000123 0.001195 0.005616953 0.000834 0 0 0.001828 0ASO2_RUNEX0.002156 0.002823 0.002927 0.003485 0.006325 0.006582 0.010485 0.013042303 0.011283 0.007230239 0.001831 0.008027 0.016233ASO2_STREX0.000557 0.000717 0.000733 0.000868 0.000162 8.54E‐05 9.37E‐05 1.96198E‐06 7.54E‐05 5.16333E‐05 0.000392 6.51E‐05 0.000197ATOG_DIURN0.208006 0.310821 0.155511 0.165232 0.056781 0.034294 0.016264 0.000235524 0.029304 0.012421079 0.066855 0.052216 10.81642ATOG_HTSK0.057819 0.083701 0.043823 0.045503 0.014537 0.008339 0.00391 6.49199E‐05 0.00656 0.003424597 3.535952 0.011692 2.824213ATOG_IDLEX00000.023432 0.017024 0.04258 0.526899253 0.043038 0 0 0.511291 0ATOG_RESTL0000000 00 0000ATOG_RUNEX0.005617 0.013201 0.007494 0.007717 0.044644 0.077093 0.027406 0.208786723 0.030062 0.693940204 0.977152 0.127141 0.047979ATOG_RUNLS0.160749 0.241641 0.119083 0.126689 0.083346 0.048385 0.033035 0.000391321 0.033896 0.013537374 3.670486 0.037896 0.068402ATOG_STREX0.215768 0.292491 0.244388 0.261323 0.074308 0.038963 0.050819 1.8134E‐06 0.04512 0.017608302 1.115488 0.056636 0.08971A N2O_IDLEX00000.000532 0.001598 0.019855 0.113681015 0.013363 0 0 0.02289 0A N2O_RUNEX 0.002889 0.0045 0.003674 0.00417 0.032136 0.070442 0.1267060.244505965 0.159364 0.142077729 0.035104 0.090896 0.066786A N2O_STREX 0.023753 0.02846 0.028293 0.028531 0.02612 0.013606 0.006893 1.7284E‐07 0.007527 0.006837798 0.005584 0.006286 0.029442CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Emission Factors Input FleetMixLandUseSubType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.392609 0.040642 0.308969 0.177896 0.031644 0.007414 0.008262 0.002362 0.002204 0.000645 0.024811 0.000394 0.002146 CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Fleet Mix Input Attachment 4: Project Construction Emissions and Health Risk Calculations 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA DPM Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates - Unmitigated DPM Modeled Emission Construction DPM Area DPM Emissions Area Rate Year Activity (ton/year) Source (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (m2)(g/s/m2) 2022 Construction 0.1130 CON_DPM 226.0 0.07285 9.18E-03 7,647 1.20E-06 2023 Construction 0.0627 CON_DPM 125.5 0.04045 5.10E-03 7,647 6.66E-07 2024 Construction 0.0057 CON_DPM 11.3 0.00366 4.61E-04 7,647 6.03E-08 Total 0.1814 362.8 0.1170 0.0147 Construction Hours hr/day = 8.5 (7am - 3:30pm) days/yr = 365 hours/year = 3102.5 580 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 2022 Construction CON_FUG 0.0920 184.1 0.05933 7.48E-03 7,647 9.78E-07 2023 Construction CON_FUG 0.0018 3.7 0.00118 1.49E-04 7,647 1.95E-08 2024 Construction CON_FUG 0.0006 1.2 0.00040 5.07E-05 7,647 6.63E-09 Total 0.0945 189.0 0.0609 0.0077 Construction Hours hr/day = 8.5 (7am - 3:30pm) days/yr = 365 hours/year = 3102.5 580 Dubuque Ave, 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 Adult (-) (μg/m 3) 2022 0.0311 0.0256 5.53 0.09 0.01 0.06 2023 0.0173 0.0005 2.84 0.05 0.00 0.02 2024 0.0016 0.0002 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total --8.41 0.14 - Maximum 0.0311 0.0256 - - 0.01 0.06 Cancer Risk (per million) 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Constructio n Impacts at Off-Site MEI Location - 7.6 meter receptor height 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 Values 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 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 Infant/Child - Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult - Exposure Information Adult Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer Maximum Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Year Annual Factor (per million) Index PM2.5 PM2.5 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2022 0.0311 10 0.42 2022 0.0311 - - 1 1 0 - 1 2022 0.0311 10 5.11 2022 0.0311 1 0.09 0.006 0.026 0.06 2 1 1 - 2 2023 0.0173 10 2.84 2023 0.0173 1 0.05 0.003 0.001 0.02 3 1 2 - 3 2024 0.0016 3 0.04 2024 0.0016 1 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 5 1 4 - 5 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 6 1 5 - 6 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 7 1 6 - 7 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 8 1 7 - 8 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 9 1 8 - 9 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 10 1 9 - 10 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 11 1 10 - 11 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 12 1 11 - 12 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 13 1 12 - 13 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 14 1 13 - 14 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 15 1 14 - 15 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 16 1 15 - 16 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 17 1 16-17 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 18 1 17-18 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 19 1 18-19 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 20 1 19-20 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 21 1 20-21 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 22 1 21-22 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 23 1 22-23 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 24 1 23-24 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 25 1 24-25 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 26 1 25-26 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 27 1 26-27 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 28 1 27-28 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 29 1 28-29 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 30 1 29-30 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 8.41 0.14 * Third trimester of pregnancy 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Constructio n Impacts at Off-Site MEI Location - 4.5 meter receptor height 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 Values 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 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 Infant/Child - Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult - Exposure Information Adult Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer Maximum Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Year Annual Factor (per million) Index PM2.5 PM2.5 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2022 0.0219 10 0.30 2022 0.0219 - - 1 1 0 - 1 2022 0.0219 10 3.60 2022 0.0219 1 0.06 0.004 0.020 0.04 2 1 1 - 2 2023 0.0122 10 2.00 2023 0.0122 1 0.03 0.002 0.000 0.01 3 1 2 - 3 2024 0.0011 3 0.03 2024 0.0011 1 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 5 1 4 - 5 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 6 1 5 - 6 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 7 1 6 - 7 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 8 1 7 - 8 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 9 1 8 - 9 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 10 1 9 - 10 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 11 1 10 - 11 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 12 1 11 - 12 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 13 1 12 - 13 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 14 1 13 - 14 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 15 1 14 - 15 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 16 1 15 - 16 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 17 1 16-17 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 18 1 17-18 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 19 1 18-19 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 20 1 19-20 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 21 1 20-21 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 22 1 21-22 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 23 1 22-23 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 24 1 23-24 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 25 1 24-25 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 26 1 25-26 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 27 1 26-27 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 28 1 27-28 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 29 1 28-29 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 30 1 29-30 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 5.93 0.10 * Third trimester of pregnancy 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Constructio n Impacts at Off-Site MEI Location - 1.5 meter receptor height 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 Values 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 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 Infant/Child - Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult - Exposure Information Adult Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer Maximum Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Year Annual Factor (per million) Index PM2.5 PM2.5 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2022 0.0266 10 0.36 2022 0.0266 - - 1 1 0 - 1 2022 0.0266 10 4.37 2022 0.0266 1 0.08 0.01 0.025 0.05 2 1 1 - 2 2023 0.0148 10 2.42 2023 0.0148 1 0.04 0.00 0.000 0.02 3 1 2 - 3 2024 0.0013 3 0.03 2024 0.0013 1 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 5 1 4 - 5 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 6 1 5 - 6 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 7 1 6 - 7 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 8 1 7 - 8 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 9 1 8 - 9 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 10 1 9 - 10 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 11 1 10 - 11 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 12 1 11 - 12 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 13 1 12 - 13 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 14 1 13 - 14 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 15 1 14 - 15 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 16 1 15 - 16 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 17 1 16-17 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 18 1 17-18 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 19 1 18-19 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 20 1 19-20 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 21 1 20-21 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 22 1 21-22 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 23 1 22-23 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 24 1 23-24 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 25 1 24-25 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 26 1 25-26 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 27 1 26-27 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 28 1 27-28 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 29 1 28-29 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 30 1 29-30 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 7.18 0.12 * Third trimester of pregnancy Attachment 5: Community Risk Modeling Information and Calculations 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA Standby Emergency Generator Impacts Off‐site Sensitive Receptors MEI Location = 7.6 meter receptor height DPM Emissions per Generator  Max Daily  Annual  Source Type  (lb/day)  (lb/year) 2,800‐kW, 3,750‐hp Generator 0.124 45.40 CalEEMod DPM Emissions  2.27E‐02 tons/year  Model  AERMOD Source  Diesel Generator Engine  Source Type  Point Meteorological Data  2013‐2017 San Francisco International Airport Generator Engine Size (hp) 3750 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) 0.005183 * AERMOD default  **BAAQMD default generator parameters  DPM Emission Rates Modeling Information  Point Source Stack Parameters  580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Cancer Risks from Project Operation Project Emergency Generator Impacts at Off-Site Receptors- 7.6m MEI Receptor Heights Impact at Project MEI (27-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) DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day) 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 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 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 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2022 0.0000 10 0.000 1 1 0 - 1 2022 0.0000 10 0.000 2 1 1 - 2 2023 0.0000 10 0.000 3 1 2 - 3 2024 0.0000 3 0.000 4 1 3 - 4 2025 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 5 1 4 - 5 2026 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 6 1 5 - 6 2027 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 7 1 6 - 7 2028 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 8 1 7 - 8 2029 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 9 1 8 - 9 2030 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 10 1 9 - 10 2031 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 11 1 10 - 11 2032 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 12 1 11 - 12 2033 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 13 1 12 - 13 2034 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 14 1 13 - 14 2035 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 15 1 14 - 15 2036 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 16 1 15 - 16 2037 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 17 1 16-17 2038 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 18 1 17-18 2039 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 19 1 18-19 2040 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 20 1 19-20 2041 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 21 1 20-21 2042 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 22 1 21-22 2043 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 23 1 22-23 2044 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 24 1 23-24 2045 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 25 1 24-25 2046 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 26 1 25-26 2047 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 27 1 26-27 2048 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 28 1 27-28 2049 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 29 1 28-29 2050 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 30 1 29-30 2051 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.43 Max 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 * Third trimester of pregnancy CT-EMFAC2017 Emissions Factors Traffic Emissions and Health Risk Calculations 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions Year = 2022 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 2 705.7 0.44 13.3 43.7 3.4 35 13,546 DPM_SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 700.1 0.44 13.3 43.7 3.4 35 13,546 Total 27,092 Emission Factors Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00050 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 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 3.85% 522 3.20E-05 9 6.74% 913 5.59E-05 17 6.40% 868 5.32E-05 2 3.18% 431 2.64E-05 10 8.25% 1117 6.84E-05 18 4.10% 555 3.40E-05 3 2.35% 318 1.95E-05 11 6.24% 845 5.18E-05 19 2.38% 323 1.98E-05 4 1.01% 136 8.34E-06 12 7.41% 1004 6.15E-05 20 1.21% 164 1.01E-05 5 1.01% 136 8.34E-06 13 6.74% 913 5.59E-05 21 3.05% 414 2.54E-05 6 2.18% 295 1.81E-05 14 6.57% 890 5.45E-05 22 5.06% 686 4.20E-05 7 4.73% 641 3.93E-05 15 5.90% 799 4.90E-05 23 3.35% 454 2.78E-05 8 3.39% 459 2.81E-05 16 4.23% 573 3.51E-05 24 0.67% 91 5.56E-06 Total 13,546 2022 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 3.85% 522 3.17E-05 9 6.74% 913 5.55E-05 17 6.40% 868 5.27E-05 2 3.18% 431 2.62E-05 10 8.25% 1117 6.79E-05 18 4.10% 555 3.37E-05 3 2.35% 318 1.93E-05 11 6.24% 845 5.14E-05 19 2.38% 323 1.96E-05 4 1.01% 136 8.27E-06 12 7.41% 1004 6.10E-05 20 1.21% 164 9.98E-06 5 1.01% 136 8.27E-06 13 6.74% 913 5.55E-05 21 3.05% 414 2.51E-05 6 2.18% 295 1.79E-05 14 6.57% 890 5.41E-05 22 5.06% 686 4.17E-05 7 4.73% 641 3.89E-05 15 5.90% 799 4.86E-05 23 3.35% 454 2.76E-05 8 3.39% 459 2.79E-05 16 4.23% 573 3.48E-05 24 0.67% 91 5.52E-06 Total 13,546 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emis sions Year = 2022 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Averag e Vehicles per Day PM2.5_NB_AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 705.7 0.44 13.3 44 1.3 35 13,546 PM2.5_SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 700.1 0.44 13.3 44 1.3 35 13,546 Total 27,092 Emission Factors - PM2.5 Speed Category 1 234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.001702 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 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% 151 3.14E-05 9 7.12% 964 2.00E-04 17 7.43% 1006 2.09E-04 2 0.41% 56 1.16E-05 10 4.38% 593 1.23E-04 18 8.24% 1116 2.31E-04 3 0.38% 51 1.05E-05 11 4.65% 629 1.30E-04 19 5.72% 775 1.61E-04 4 0.17% 23 4.85E-06 12 5.89% 798 1.65E-04 20 4.30% 583 1.21E-04 5 0.45% 61 1.27E-05 13 6.17% 836 1.73E-04 21 3.26% 441 9.14E-05 6 0.85% 115 2.39E-05 14 6.05% 819 1.70E-04 22 3.31% 449 9.30E-05 7 3.73% 506 1.05E-04 15 7.05% 956 1.98E-04 23 2.49% 337 6.98E-05 8 7.77% 1052 2.18E-04 16 7.19% 974 2.02E-04 24 1.87% 254 5.26E-05 Total 13,546 2022 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% 151 3.12E-05 9 7.12% 964 1.98E-04 17 7.43% 1006 2.07E-04 2 0.41% 56 1.15E-05 10 4.38% 593 1.22E-04 18 8.24% 1116 2.29E-04 3 0.38% 51 1.05E-05 11 4.65% 629 1.29E-04 19 5.72% 775 1.59E-04 4 0.17% 23 4.81E-06 12 5.89% 798 1.64E-04 20 4.30% 583 1.20E-04 5 0.45% 61 1.26E-05 13 6.17% 836 1.72E-04 21 3.26% 441 9.07E-05 6 0.85% 115 2.37E-05 14 6.05% 819 1.69E-04 22 3.31% 449 9.22E-05 7 3.73% 506 1.04E-04 15 7.05% 956 1.97E-04 23 2.49% 337 6.93E-05 8 7.77% 1052 2.16E-04 16 7.19% 974 2.00E-04 24 1.87% 254 5.22E-05 Total 13,546 580 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 = 2022 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 2 705.7 0.44 13.3 44 1.3 35 13,546 TEXH_SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 700.1 0.44 13.3 44 1.3 35 13,546 Total 27,092 Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03831 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 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% 151 7.07E-04 9 7.12% 964 4.50E-03 17 7.43% 1006 4.70E-03 2 0.41% 56 2.62E-04 10 4.38% 593 2.77E-03 18 8.24% 1116 5.21E-03 3 0.38% 51 2.37E-04 11 4.65% 629 2.94E-03 19 5.72% 775 3.62E-03 4 0.17% 23 1.09E-04 12 5.89% 798 3.72E-03 20 4.30% 583 2.72E-03 5 0.45% 61 2.87E-04 13 6.17% 836 3.90E-03 21 3.26% 441 2.06E-03 6 0.85% 115 5.38E-04 14 6.05% 819 3.82E-03 22 3.31% 449 2.09E-03 7 3.73% 506 2.36E-03 15 7.05% 956 4.46E-03 23 2.49% 337 1.57E-03 8 7.77% 1052 4.91E-03 16 7.19% 974 4.54E-03 24 1.87% 254 1.18E-03 Total 13,546 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust Emiss ions - TEXH_SB_AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 151 7.01E-04 9 7.12% 964 4.46E-03 17 7.43% 1006 4.66E-03 2 0.41% 56 2.60E-04 10 4.38% 593 2.74E-03 18 8.24% 1116 5.16E-03 3 0.38% 51 2.36E-04 11 4.65% 629 2.91E-03 19 5.72% 775 3.59E-03 4 0.17% 23 1.08E-04 12 5.89% 798 3.69E-03 20 4.30% 583 2.70E-03 5 0.45% 61 2.84E-04 13 6.17% 836 3.87E-03 21 3.26% 441 2.04E-03 6 0.85% 115 5.33E-04 14 6.05% 819 3.79E-03 22 3.31% 449 2.08E-03 7 3.73% 506 2.34E-03 15 7.05% 956 4.42E-03 23 2.49% 337 1.56E-03 8 7.77% 1052 4.87E-03 16 7.19% 974 4.51E-03 24 1.87% 254 1.17E-03 Total 13,546 580 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 = 2022 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 2 705.7 0.44 13.3 44 1.3 35 13,546 TEVAP_SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 700.1 0.44 13.3 44 1.3 35 13,546 Total 27,092 Emission Factors - PM2.5 - Evaporative TOG Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle per Hour (g/hour)1.24545 Emissions per Vehicle per Mile (g/VMT) 0.03558 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 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% 151 6.56E-04 9 7.12% 964 4.18E-03 17 7.43% 1006 4.36E-03 2 0.41% 56 2.43E-04 10 4.38% 593 2.57E-03 18 8.24% 1116 4.84E-03 3 0.38% 51 2.21E-04 11 4.65% 629 2.73E-03 19 5.72% 775 3.36E-03 4 0.17% 23 1.01E-04 12 5.89% 798 3.46E-03 20 4.30% 583 2.53E-03 5 0.45% 61 2.66E-04 13 6.17% 836 3.62E-03 21 3.26% 441 1.91E-03 6 0.85% 115 4.99E-04 14 6.05% 819 3.55E-03 22 3.31% 449 1.94E-03 7 3.73% 506 2.19E-03 15 7.05% 956 4.14E-03 23 2.49% 337 1.46E-03 8 7.77% 1052 4.56E-03 16 7.19% 974 4.22E-03 24 1.87% 254 1.10E-03 Total 13,546 2022 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% 151 6.51E-04 9 7.12% 964 4.15E-03 17 7.43% 1006 4.33E-03 2 0.41% 56 2.41E-04 10 4.38% 593 2.55E-03 18 8.24% 1116 4.80E-03 3 0.38% 51 2.19E-04 11 4.65% 629 2.71E-03 19 5.72% 775 3.33E-03 4 0.17% 23 1.01E-04 12 5.89% 798 3.43E-03 20 4.30% 583 2.51E-03 5 0.45% 61 2.64E-04 13 6.17% 836 3.60E-03 21 3.26% 441 1.90E-03 6 0.85% 115 4.95E-04 14 6.05% 819 3.52E-03 22 3.31% 449 1.93E-03 7 3.73% 506 2.18E-03 15 7.05% 956 4.11E-03 23 2.49% 337 1.45E-03 8 7.77% 1052 4.52E-03 16 7.19% 974 4.19E-03 24 1.87% 254 1.09E-03 Total 13,546 580 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 = 2022 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day FUG_NB_AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 705.7 0.44 13.3 44 1.3 35 13,546 FUG_SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 700.1 0.44 13.3 44 1.3 35 13,546 Total 27,092 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) 0.01680 Road Dust - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01482 otal Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03367 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 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% 151 6.21E-04 9 7.12% 964 3.95E-03 17 7.43% 1006 4.13E-03 2 0.41% 56 2.30E-04 10 4.38% 593 2.43E-03 18 8.24% 1116 4.58E-03 3 0.38% 51 2.09E-04 11 4.65% 629 2.58E-03 19 5.72% 775 3.18E-03 4 0.17% 23 9.59E-05 12 5.89% 798 3.27E-03 20 4.30% 583 2.39E-03 5 0.45% 61 2.52E-04 13 6.17% 836 3.43E-03 21 3.26% 441 1.81E-03 6 0.85% 115 4.72E-04 14 6.05% 819 3.36E-03 22 3.31% 449 1.84E-03 7 3.73% 506 2.07E-03 15 7.05% 956 3.92E-03 23 2.49% 337 1.38E-03 8 7.77% 1052 4.31E-03 16 7.19% 974 3.99E-03 24 1.87% 254 1.04E-03 Total 13,546 2022 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% 151 6.16E-04 9 7.12% 964 3.92E-03 17 7.43% 1006 4.09E-03 2 0.41% 56 2.28E-04 10 4.38% 593 2.41E-03 18 8.24% 1116 4.54E-03 3 0.38% 51 2.07E-04 11 4.65% 629 2.56E-03 19 5.72% 775 3.15E-03 4 0.17% 23 9.52E-05 12 5.89% 798 3.25E-03 20 4.30% 583 2.37E-03 5 0.45% 61 2.50E-04 13 6.17% 836 3.40E-03 21 3.26% 441 1.79E-03 6 0.85% 115 4.69E-04 14 6.05% 819 3.33E-03 22 3.31% 449 1.82E-03 7 3.73% 506 2.06E-03 15 7.05% 956 3.89E-03 23 2.49% 337 1.37E-03 8 7.77% 1052 4.28E-03 16 7.19% 974 3.96E-03 24 1.87% 254 1.03E-03 Total 13,546 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Grand Avenue DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions Year = 2022 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_EB_GND Grand Avenue Eastbound EB 3 656.7 0.41 17.0 55.7 3.4 35 17,067 DPM_WB_GND Grand Avenue Westbound WB 3 665.5 0.41 17.0 55.7 3.4 35 17,067 Total 34,134 Emission Factors Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00050 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emissions - DPM_EB_GND Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 3.85% 658 3.75E-05 9 6.74% 1150 6.56E-05 17 6.40% 1093 6.23E-05 2 3.18% 543 3.10E-05 10 8.25% 1408 8.02E-05 18 4.10% 700 3.99E-05 3 2.35% 400 2.28E-05 11 6.24% 1064 6.07E-05 19 2.38% 407 2.32E-05 4 1.01% 172 9.78E-06 12 7.41% 1265 7.21E-05 20 1.21% 207 1.18E-05 5 1.01% 172 9.78E-06 13 6.74% 1150 6.56E-05 21 3.05% 521 2.97E-05 6 2.18% 372 2.12E-05 14 6.57% 1122 6.40E-05 22 5.06% 864 4.93E-05 7 4.73% 807 4.60E-05 15 5.90% 1007 5.74E-05 23 3.35% 572 3.26E-05 8 3.39% 578 3.30E-05 16 4.23% 721 4.11E-05 24 0.67% 114 6.52E-06 Total 17,067 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - DPM_WB_GND Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 3.85% 658 3.80E-05 9 6.74% 1150 6.65E-05 17 6.40% 1093 6.32E-05 2 3.18% 543 3.14E-05 10 8.25% 1408 8.13E-05 18 4.10% 700 4.04E-05 3 2.35% 400 2.31E-05 11 6.24% 1064 6.15E-05 19 2.38% 407 2.35E-05 4 1.01% 172 9.91E-06 12 7.41% 1265 7.31E-05 20 1.21% 207 1.20E-05 5 1.01% 172 9.91E-06 13 6.74% 1150 6.65E-05 21 3.05% 521 3.01E-05 6 2.18% 372 2.15E-05 14 6.57% 1122 6.48E-05 22 5.06% 864 4.99E-05 7 4.73% 807 4.66E-05 15 5.90% 1007 5.82E-05 23 3.35% 572 3.30E-05 8 3.39% 578 3.34E-05 16 4.23% 721 4.17E-05 24 0.67% 114 6.61E-06 Total 17,067 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Grand Avenue PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emis sions Year = 2022 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Averag e Vehicles per Day PM2.5_EB_GND Grand Avenue Eastbound EB 3 656.7 0.41 17.0 56 1.3 35 17,067 PM2.5_WB_GND Grand Avenue Westbound WB 3 665.5 0.41 17.0 56 1.3 35 17,067 Total 34,134 Emission Factors - PM2.5 Speed Category 1 234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.001702 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_EB_GND Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 191 3.68E-05 9 7.12% 1215 2.34E-04 17 7.43% 1268 2.45E-04 2 0.41% 71 1.36E-05 10 4.38% 747 1.44E-04 18 8.24% 1406 2.71E-04 3 0.38% 64 1.24E-05 11 4.65% 793 1.53E-04 19 5.72% 977 1.88E-04 4 0.17% 29 5.69E-06 12 5.89% 1005 1.94E-04 20 4.30% 735 1.42E-04 5 0.45% 77 1.49E-05 13 6.17% 1054 2.03E-04 21 3.26% 556 1.07E-04 6 0.85% 145 2.80E-05 14 6.05% 1032 1.99E-04 22 3.31% 565 1.09E-04 7 3.73% 637 1.23E-04 15 7.05% 1204 2.32E-04 23 2.49% 424 8.19E-05 8 7.77% 1325 2.56E-04 16 7.19% 1227 2.37E-04 24 1.87% 320 6.17E-05 Total 17,067 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_WB_GND Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 191 3.73E-05 9 7.12% 1215 2.38E-04 17 7.43% 1268 2.48E-04 2 0.41% 71 1.38E-05 10 4.38% 747 1.46E-04 18 8.24% 1406 2.75E-04 3 0.38% 64 1.25E-05 11 4.65% 793 1.55E-04 19 5.72% 977 1.91E-04 4 0.17% 29 5.76E-06 12 5.89% 1005 1.96E-04 20 4.30% 735 1.44E-04 5 0.45% 77 1.51E-05 13 6.17% 1054 2.06E-04 21 3.26% 556 1.09E-04 6 0.85% 145 2.84E-05 14 6.05% 1032 2.02E-04 22 3.31% 565 1.10E-04 7 3.73% 637 1.25E-04 15 7.05% 1204 2.35E-04 23 2.49% 424 8.30E-05 8 7.77% 1325 2.59E-04 16 7.19% 1227 2.40E-04 24 1.87% 320 6.25E-05 Total 17,067 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Grand Avenue TOG Exhaust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Exhaust Emissions Year = 2022 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_EB_GND Grand Avenue Eastbound EB 3 656.7 0.41 17.0 56 1.3 35 17,067 TEXH_WB_GND Grand Avenue Westbound WB 3 665.5 0.41 17.0 56 1.3 35 17,067 Total 34,134 Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03831 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_EB _GND Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 191 8.29E-04 9 7.12% 1215 5.28E-03 17 7.43% 1268 5.51E-03 2 0.41% 71 3.07E-04 10 4.38% 747 3.24E-03 18 8.24% 1406 6.10E-03 3 0.38% 64 2.78E-04 11 4.65% 793 3.44E-03 19 5.72% 977 4.24E-03 4 0.17% 29 1.28E-04 12 5.89% 1005 4.36E-03 20 4.30% 735 3.19E-03 5 0.45% 77 3.36E-04 13 6.17% 1054 4.57E-03 21 3.26% 556 2.41E-03 6 0.85% 145 6.30E-04 14 6.05% 1032 4.48E-03 22 3.31% 565 2.45E-03 7 3.73% 637 2.77E-03 15 7.05% 1204 5.23E-03 23 2.49% 424 1.84E-03 8 7.77% 1325 5.76E-03 16 7.19% 1227 5.33E-03 24 1.87% 320 1.39E-03 Total 17,067 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust Emiss ions - TEXH_WB_GND Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 191 8.40E-04 9 7.12% 1215 5.35E-03 17 7.43% 1268 5.58E-03 2 0.41% 71 3.11E-04 10 4.38% 747 3.29E-03 18 8.24% 1406 6.19E-03 3 0.38% 64 2.82E-04 11 4.65% 793 3.49E-03 19 5.72% 977 4.30E-03 4 0.17% 29 1.30E-04 12 5.89% 1005 4.42E-03 20 4.30% 735 3.23E-03 5 0.45% 77 3.40E-04 13 6.17% 1054 4.64E-03 21 3.26% 556 2.44E-03 6 0.85% 145 6.39E-04 14 6.05% 1032 4.54E-03 22 3.31% 565 2.49E-03 7 3.73% 637 2.80E-03 15 7.05% 1204 5.30E-03 23 2.49% 424 1.87E-03 8 7.77% 1325 5.83E-03 16 7.19% 1227 5.40E-03 24 1.87% 320 1.41E-03 Total 17,067 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Grand Avenue TOG Evaporative Emissions Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Evaporative Emissions Year = 2022 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_EB_GND Grand Avenue Eastbound EB 3 656.7 0.41 17.0 56 1.3 35 17,067 TEVAP_WB_GND Grand Avenue Westbound WB 3 665.5 0.41 17.0 56 1.3 35 17,067 Total 34,134 Emission Factors - PM2.5 - Evaporative TOG Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle per Hour (g/hour)1.24545 Emissions per Vehicle per Mile (g/VMT) 0.03558 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_EB_GND Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 191 7.70E-04 9 7.12% 1215 4.90E-03 17 7.43% 1268 5.11E-03 2 0.41% 71 2.85E-04 10 4.38% 747 3.01E-03 18 8.24% 1406 5.67E-03 3 0.38% 64 2.59E-04 11 4.65% 793 3.20E-03 19 5.72% 977 3.94E-03 4 0.17% 29 1.19E-04 12 5.89% 1005 4.05E-03 20 4.30% 735 2.96E-03 5 0.45% 77 3.12E-04 13 6.17% 1054 4.25E-03 21 3.26% 556 2.24E-03 6 0.85% 145 5.85E-04 14 6.05% 1032 4.16E-03 22 3.31% 565 2.28E-03 7 3.73% 637 2.57E-03 15 7.05% 1204 4.86E-03 23 2.49% 424 1.71E-03 8 7.77% 1325 5.35E-03 16 7.19% 1227 4.95E-03 24 1.87% 320 1.29E-03 Total 17,067 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_WB_GND Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 191 7.80E-04 9 7.12% 1215 4.97E-03 17 7.43% 1268 5.18E-03 2 0.41% 71 2.89E-04 10 4.38% 747 3.05E-03 18 8.24% 1406 5.75E-03 3 0.38% 64 2.62E-04 11 4.65% 793 3.24E-03 19 5.72% 977 3.99E-03 4 0.17% 29 1.20E-04 12 5.89% 1005 4.11E-03 20 4.30% 735 3.00E-03 5 0.45% 77 3.16E-04 13 6.17% 1054 4.31E-03 21 3.26% 556 2.27E-03 6 0.85% 145 5.93E-04 14 6.05% 1032 4.22E-03 22 3.31% 565 2.31E-03 7 3.73% 637 2.61E-03 15 7.05% 1204 4.92E-03 23 2.49% 424 1.73E-03 8 7.77% 1325 5.42E-03 16 7.19% 1227 5.01E-03 24 1.87% 320 1.31E-03 Total 17,067 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Grand Avenue Fugitive Road PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and Fugitive Road PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2022 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day FUG_EB_GND Grand Avenue Eastbound EB 3 656.7 0.41 17.0 56 1.3 35 17,067 FUG_WB_GND Grand Avenue Westbound WB 3 665.5 0.41 17.0 56 1.3 35 17,067 Total 34,134 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) 0.01680 Road Dust - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01482 otal Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03367 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_EB_GND Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 191 7.28E-04 9 7.12% 1215 4.64E-03 17 7.43% 1268 4.84E-03 2 0.41% 71 2.70E-04 10 4.38% 747 2.85E-03 18 8.24% 1406 5.36E-03 3 0.38% 64 2.45E-04 11 4.65% 793 3.03E-03 19 5.72% 977 3.73E-03 4 0.17% 29 1.12E-04 12 5.89% 1005 3.84E-03 20 4.30% 735 2.80E-03 5 0.45% 77 2.95E-04 13 6.17% 1054 4.02E-03 21 3.26% 556 2.12E-03 6 0.85% 145 5.54E-04 14 6.05% 1032 3.94E-03 22 3.31% 565 2.16E-03 7 3.73% 637 2.43E-03 15 7.05% 1204 4.59E-03 23 2.49% 424 1.62E-03 8 7.77% 1325 5.06E-03 16 7.19% 1227 4.68E-03 24 1.87% 320 1.22E-03 Total 17,067 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_WB_GND Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 191 7.38E-04 9 7.12% 1215 4.70E-03 17 7.43% 1268 4.90E-03 2 0.41% 71 2.74E-04 10 4.38% 747 2.89E-03 18 8.24% 1406 5.44E-03 3 0.38% 64 2.48E-04 11 4.65% 793 3.07E-03 19 5.72% 977 3.78E-03 4 0.17% 29 1.14E-04 12 5.89% 1005 3.89E-03 20 4.30% 735 2.84E-03 5 0.45% 77 2.99E-04 13 6.17% 1054 4.07E-03 21 3.26% 556 2.15E-03 6 0.85% 145 5.61E-04 14 6.05% 1032 3.99E-03 22 3.31% 565 2.19E-03 7 3.73% 637 2.46E-03 15 7.05% 1204 4.66E-03 23 2.49% 424 1.64E-03 8 7.77% 1325 5.13E-03 16 7.19% 1227 4.74E-03 24 1.87% 320 1.24E-03 Total 17,067 580 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 - 7.6 meter receptor height) Emission Year 2022 Receptor Information Construction Residential MEI receptor Number of Receptors 1 Receptor Height 7.6 Meters Receptor Distances At Construction Residential MEI locations Meteorological Conditions BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport M 2013-2017 Land Use Classification Urban Wind Speed Variable Wind Direction Variable Construction Residential MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG 2013-2017 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 Construction Residential MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5 2013-2017 0.0847 0.0806 0.0041 Concentration (μg/m3)* PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3)* 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Grand Avenue Traffic - TACs & PM2.5 AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations at Construction Residential MEI Receptors (1 Location - 7.6 meter receptor height) Emission Year 2022 Receptor Information Construction Residential MEI receptor Number of Receptors 1 Receptor Height 7.6 Meters Receptor Distances At Construction Residential MEI locations Meteorological Conditions BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport M 2013-2017 Land Use Classification Urban Wind Speed Variable Wind Direction Variable Construction Residential MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG 2013-2017 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 Construction Residential MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5 2013-2017 0.0396 0.0377 0.0019 Concentration (μg/m3)* PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3)* 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Airport Blvd Traffic Cancer Risk Impacts at Construction Residential MEI - 7.6 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 Expos ure Exposure Duration DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG DPM Year (years) Age 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.023 0.007 0.0004 0.03 Hazard Index Fugitive PM2.5 Total PM2.5 1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.274 0.086 0.0047 0.36 0.0003 0.08 0.08 2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.274 0.086 0.0047 0.36 3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 17 1 16-17 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 18 1 17-18 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 19 1 18-19 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 20 1 19-20 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 21 1 20-21 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 22 1 21-22 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 23 1 22-23 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 24 1 23-24 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 25 1 24-25 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 26 1 25-26 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 27 1 26-27 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 28 1 27-28 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 29 1 28-29 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 30 1 29-30 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 Total Increased Cancer Risk 1.24 0.389 0.021 1.65 * Third trimester of pregnancy 2026 2027 2028 2029 TAC DPM Maximum - Exposure Information 2025 Maximum 2022 2022 2023 2024 TOTAL Year Age Sensitivity Factor Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million) 2030 2043 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2031 2050 2051 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Grand Avenue Traffic Cancer Risk Impacts at Construction Residential MEI - 7.6 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 Expos ure Exposure Duration DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG DPM Year (years) Age 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.008 0.003 0.0002 0.01 Hazard Index Fugitive PM2.5 Total PM2.5 1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.095 0.040 0.0022 0.14 0.0001 0.04 0.04 2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.095 0.040 0.0022 0.14 3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 17 1 16-17 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 18 1 17-18 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 19 1 18-19 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 20 1 19-20 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 21 1 20-21 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 22 1 21-22 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 23 1 22-23 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 24 1 23-24 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 25 1 24-25 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 26 1 25-26 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 27 1 26-27 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 28 1 27-28 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 29 1 28-29 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 30 1 29-30 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.43 0.182 0.010 0.62 * Third trimester of pregnancy 2050 2051 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2030 2043 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2031 Maximum 2022 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL Year Age Sensitivity Factor Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG 2026 2027 2028 2029 TAC DPM Maximum - Exposure Information Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million) 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Project Trips - Dubuque Ave DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions Year = 2025 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_DBQ Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 207.7 0.13 9.7 31.7 3.4 30 2,159 DPM_SB_DBQ Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 216.5 0.13 9.7 31.7 3.4 30 2,159 Total 4,318 Emission Factors Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 30 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00024 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emissions - DPM_NB_DBQ Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 3.85% 83 7.13E-07 9 6.74% 146 1.25E-06 17 6.40% 138 1.18E-06 2 3.18% 69 5.89E-07 10 8.25% 178 1.53E-06 18 4.10% 88 7.58E-07 3 2.35% 51 4.34E-07 11 6.24% 135 1.15E-06 19 2.38% 51 4.41E-07 4 1.01% 22 1.86E-07 12 7.41% 160 1.37E-06 20 1.21% 26 2.24E-07 5 1.01% 22 1.86E-07 13 6.74% 146 1.25E-06 21 3.05% 66 5.65E-07 6 2.18% 47 4.03E-07 14 6.57% 142 1.22E-06 22 5.06% 109 9.37E-07 7 4.73% 102 8.75E-07 15 5.90% 127 1.09E-06 23 3.35% 72 6.20E-07 8 3.39% 73 6.27E-07 16 4.23% 91 7.82E-07 24 0.67% 14 1.24E-07 Total 2,159 2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - DPM_SB_DBQ Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 3.85% 83 7.43E-07 9 6.74% 146 1.30E-06 17 6.40% 138 1.23E-06 2 3.18% 69 6.14E-07 10 8.25% 178 1.59E-06 18 4.10% 88 7.90E-07 3 2.35% 51 4.52E-07 11 6.24% 135 1.20E-06 19 2.38% 51 4.60E-07 4 1.01% 22 1.94E-07 12 7.41% 160 1.43E-06 20 1.21% 26 2.34E-07 5 1.01% 22 1.94E-07 13 6.74% 146 1.30E-06 21 3.05% 66 5.89E-07 6 2.18% 47 4.20E-07 14 6.57% 142 1.27E-06 22 5.06% 109 9.77E-07 7 4.73% 102 9.12E-07 15 5.90% 127 1.14E-06 23 3.35% 72 6.46E-07 8 3.39% 73 6.54E-07 16 4.23% 91 8.15E-07 24 0.67% 14 1.29E-07 Total 2,159 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Project Trips - Dubuque Ave PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emis sions Year = 2025 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Averag e Vehicles per Day PM2.5_NB_DBQ Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 207.7 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159 PM2.5_SB_DBQ Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 216.5 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159 Total 4,318 Emission Factors - PM2.5 Speed Category 1 234 Travel Speed (mph) 30 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.001533 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_NB_DBQ Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 24 1.33E-06 9 7.12% 154 8.45E-06 17 7.43% 160 8.82E-06 2 0.41% 9 4.92E-07 10 4.38% 95 5.19E-06 18 8.24% 178 9.77E-06 3 0.38% 8 4.46E-07 11 4.65% 100 5.51E-06 19 5.72% 124 6.79E-06 4 0.17% 4 2.05E-07 12 5.89% 127 6.99E-06 20 4.30% 93 5.11E-06 5 0.45% 10 5.38E-07 13 6.17% 133 7.32E-06 21 3.26% 70 3.86E-06 6 0.85% 18 1.01E-06 14 6.05% 131 7.18E-06 22 3.31% 71 3.93E-06 7 3.73% 81 4.43E-06 15 7.05% 152 8.37E-06 23 2.49% 54 2.95E-06 8 7.77% 168 9.22E-06 16 7.19% 155 8.53E-06 24 1.87% 40 2.22E-06 Total 2,159 2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_SB_DBQ Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 24 1.38E-06 9 7.12% 154 8.80E-06 17 7.43% 160 9.19E-06 2 0.41% 9 5.13E-07 10 4.38% 95 5.41E-06 18 8.24% 178 1.02E-05 3 0.38% 8 4.65E-07 11 4.65% 100 5.75E-06 19 5.72% 124 7.08E-06 4 0.17% 4 2.14E-07 12 5.89% 127 7.28E-06 20 4.30% 93 5.32E-06 5 0.45% 10 5.61E-07 13 6.17% 133 7.64E-06 21 3.26% 70 4.03E-06 6 0.85% 18 1.05E-06 14 6.05% 131 7.48E-06 22 3.31% 71 4.10E-06 7 3.73% 81 4.62E-06 15 7.05% 152 8.72E-06 23 2.49% 54 3.08E-06 8 7.77% 168 9.61E-06 16 7.19% 155 8.89E-06 24 1.87% 40 2.32E-06 Total 2,159 580 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 = 2025 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_DBQ Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 207.7 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159 TEXH_SB_DBQ Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 216.5 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159 Total 4,318 Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 30 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.04138 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_NB _DBQ Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 24 3.58E-05 9 7.12% 154 2.28E-04 17 7.43% 160 2.38E-04 2 0.41% 9 1.33E-05 10 4.38% 95 1.40E-04 18 8.24% 178 2.64E-04 3 0.38% 8 1.20E-05 11 4.65% 100 1.49E-04 19 5.72% 124 1.83E-04 4 0.17% 4 5.53E-06 12 5.89% 127 1.89E-04 20 4.30% 93 1.38E-04 5 0.45% 10 1.45E-05 13 6.17% 133 1.98E-04 21 3.26% 70 1.04E-04 6 0.85% 18 2.72E-05 14 6.05% 131 1.94E-04 22 3.31% 71 1.06E-04 7 3.73% 81 1.20E-04 15 7.05% 152 2.26E-04 23 2.49% 54 7.96E-05 8 7.77% 168 2.49E-04 16 7.19% 155 2.30E-04 24 1.87% 40 6.00E-05 Total 2,159 2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust Emiss ions - TEXH_SB_DBQ Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 24 3.73E-05 9 7.12% 154 2.38E-04 17 7.43% 160 2.48E-04 2 0.41% 9 1.38E-05 10 4.38% 95 1.46E-04 18 8.24% 178 2.75E-04 3 0.38% 8 1.25E-05 11 4.65% 100 1.55E-04 19 5.72% 124 1.91E-04 4 0.17% 4 5.76E-06 12 5.89% 127 1.97E-04 20 4.30% 93 1.44E-04 5 0.45% 10 1.51E-05 13 6.17% 133 2.06E-04 21 3.26% 70 1.09E-04 6 0.85% 18 2.84E-05 14 6.05% 131 2.02E-04 22 3.31% 71 1.11E-04 7 3.73% 81 1.25E-04 15 7.05% 152 2.35E-04 23 2.49% 54 8.30E-05 8 7.77% 168 2.59E-04 16 7.19% 155 2.40E-04 24 1.87% 40 6.25E-05 Total 2,159 580 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 = 2025 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_DBQ Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 207.7 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159 TEVAP_SB_DBQ Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 216.5 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159 Total 4,318 Emission Factors - PM2.5 - Evaporative TOG Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 30 Emissions per Vehicle per Hour (g/hour)1.11204 Emissions per Vehicle per Mile (g/VMT) 0.03707 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_NB_DBQ Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 24 3.21E-05 9 7.12% 154 2.04E-04 17 7.43% 160 2.13E-04 2 0.41% 9 1.19E-05 10 4.38% 95 1.26E-04 18 8.24% 178 2.36E-04 3 0.38% 8 1.08E-05 11 4.65% 100 1.33E-04 19 5.72% 124 1.64E-04 4 0.17% 4 4.95E-06 12 5.89% 127 1.69E-04 20 4.30% 93 1.23E-04 5 0.45% 10 1.30E-05 13 6.17% 133 1.77E-04 21 3.26% 70 9.34E-05 6 0.85% 18 2.44E-05 14 6.05% 131 1.74E-04 22 3.31% 71 9.50E-05 7 3.73% 81 1.07E-04 15 7.05% 152 2.02E-04 23 2.49% 54 7.13E-05 8 7.77% 168 2.23E-04 16 7.19% 155 2.06E-04 24 1.87% 40 5.38E-05 Total 2,159 2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_SB_DBQ Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 24 3.34E-05 9 7.12% 154 2.13E-04 17 7.43% 160 2.22E-04 2 0.41% 9 1.24E-05 10 4.38% 95 1.31E-04 18 8.24% 178 2.46E-04 3 0.38% 8 1.12E-05 11 4.65% 100 1.39E-04 19 5.72% 124 1.71E-04 4 0.17% 4 5.16E-06 12 5.89% 127 1.76E-04 20 4.30% 93 1.29E-04 5 0.45% 10 1.36E-05 13 6.17% 133 1.85E-04 21 3.26% 70 9.73E-05 6 0.85% 18 2.54E-05 14 6.05% 131 1.81E-04 22 3.31% 71 9.90E-05 7 3.73% 81 1.12E-04 15 7.05% 152 2.11E-04 23 2.49% 54 7.44E-05 8 7.77% 168 2.32E-04 16 7.19% 155 2.15E-04 24 1.87% 40 5.60E-05 Total 2,159 580 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 = 2025 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day FUG_NB_DBQ Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 207.7 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159 FUG_SB_DBQ Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 216.5 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159 Total 4,318 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) 0.01496 otal Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03382 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_NB_DBQ Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 24 2.93E-05 9 7.12% 154 1.86E-04 17 7.43% 160 1.94E-04 2 0.41% 9 1.08E-05 10 4.38% 95 1.15E-04 18 8.24% 178 2.16E-04 3 0.38% 8 9.83E-06 11 4.65% 100 1.22E-04 19 5.72% 124 1.50E-04 4 0.17% 4 4.52E-06 12 5.89% 127 1.54E-04 20 4.30% 93 1.13E-04 5 0.45% 10 1.19E-05 13 6.17% 133 1.62E-04 21 3.26% 70 8.52E-05 6 0.85% 18 2.23E-05 14 6.05% 131 1.58E-04 22 3.31% 71 8.67E-05 7 3.73% 81 9.77E-05 15 7.05% 152 1.85E-04 23 2.49% 54 6.51E-05 8 7.77% 168 2.03E-04 16 7.19% 155 1.88E-04 24 1.87% 40 4.90E-05 Total 2,159 2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_SB_DBQ Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 24 3.05E-05 9 7.12% 154 1.94E-04 17 7.43% 160 2.03E-04 2 0.41% 9 1.13E-05 10 4.38% 95 1.19E-04 18 8.24% 178 2.25E-04 3 0.38% 8 1.02E-05 11 4.65% 100 1.27E-04 19 5.72% 124 1.56E-04 4 0.17% 4 4.71E-06 12 5.89% 127 1.61E-04 20 4.30% 93 1.17E-04 5 0.45% 10 1.24E-05 13 6.17% 133 1.68E-04 21 3.26% 70 8.88E-05 6 0.85% 18 2.32E-05 14 6.05% 131 1.65E-04 22 3.31% 71 9.03E-05 7 3.73% 81 1.02E-04 15 7.05% 152 1.92E-04 23 2.49% 54 6.78E-05 8 7.77% 168 2.12E-04 16 7.19% 155 1.96E-04 24 1.87% 40 5.11E-05 Total 2,159 580 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 - 7.6 meter receptor height) Emiss ion Year 2025 Receptor Information Construction Residential MEI receptor Number of Receptors 1 Receptor Height 7.6 Meters Receptor Distances At Construction Residential MEI locations Meteorological Conditions BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport M 2013-2017 Land Use Classification Urban Wind Speed Variable Wind Direction Variable Construction Residential MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG 2013-2017 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 Construction Residential MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5 2013-2017 0.0039 0.0037 0.0002 Concentration (μg/m3)* PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3)* 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Grand Avenue Traffic Cancer Risk - Project Trips Impacts at Construction Residential MEI - 7.6 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 Expos ure Exposure Duration DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG DPM Year (years) Age 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 Hazard Index Fugitive PM2.5 Total PM2.5 1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.005 0.004 0.0002 0.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.005 0.004 0.0002 0.01 3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 17 1 16-17 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 18 1 17-18 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 19 1 18-19 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 20 1 19-20 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 21 1 20-21 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 22 1 21-22 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 23 1 22-23 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 24 1 23-24 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 25 1 24-25 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 26 1 25-26 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 27 1 26-27 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 28 1 27-28 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 29 1 28-29 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 30 1 29-30 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.02 0.019 0.001 0.04 * 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 Stationary Source Risk & Hazards Screening Report Area of Interest (AOI) Information Area : 4,829,628.73 ft² Oct 27 2021 13:00:04 Eastern Daylight Time Firefox https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=238... 1 of 2 10/27/2021, 1:01 PM Summary Name Count Area(ft²) Length(ft) Permitted Facilities 2018 11 N/A N/A Permitted Facilities 2018 # FACID Name Address City St 1 14009 Boston Properties 651 Gateway Boulevard South San Francisco CA 2 15916 Boston Properties 611 Gateway Boulevard South San Francisco CA 3 16024 Genentech, Inc 611 Gateway Boulevard South San Francisco CA 4 17649 Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc Gateway Boulevard South San Francisco CA 5 18401 Lowe's HIW Inc 720 Dubuque Avenue South San Francisco CA 6 19179 MacroGenics West,Inc One Corporate Drive South San FranciscoCA 7 20215 NOD Auto Body Shop Inc 110 Lux Ave South San Francisco CA 8 20236 Biotech Gateway - HCP c/o CBRE 2 Corporate Drive South San Francisco CA 9 109214 Unocal #1020 --Grand Martco Inc 221 Airport Blvd South San Francisco CA 10 110786 Flyers #411 190 E Grand Ave South San Francisco CA 11 201062 A&K Supreme Auto 510 CYPRESS AVE # 512 S SAN FRAN CA # Zip County Cancer Hazard PM_25 Type Count 1 94080 San Mateo 20.250 0.030 0.330 Contact BAAQMD 1 2 94080 San Mateo 1.770 0.000 0.000 Contact BAAQMD 1 3 94080 San Mateo 2.730 0.010 0.000 Generators 1 4 94080 San Mateo 9.310 0.010 0.010 Generators 1 5 94080 San Mateo 9.470 0.000 0.010 Generators 1 6 94080 San Mateo 39.610 0.020 0.050 Generators 1 7 94080 San Mateo 0.000 0.000 0.000 Contact BAAQMD 1 8 94080 San Mateo 1.660 0.000 0.000 Generators 1 9 94080 San Mateo 24.520 0.110 0.000 Gas Dispensing Facility 1 10 94080 San Mateo 10.030 0.040 0.000 Gas Dispensing Facility 1 11 94080 Santa Clara 0.000 0.000 0.000 Contact BAAQMD 1 Note: The estimated risk and hazard impacts from these sources would be expected to be substantially lower when site specific Health Risk Screening Assessments are conducted. The screening level map is not recommended for evaluating sensitive land uses such as schools, senior centers, day cares, and health facilities. © Copyright 2018 Bay Area Air Quality Management District Firefox https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=238... 2 of 2 10/27/2021, 1:01 PM Date of Request 10/27/2021Contact NameZachary PalmAffiliationIllingworth & Rodkin, Inc.Phone707‐794‐0400 x117Emailzpalm@illingworthrodkin.comProject Name580 Dubuque AveAddress580 Dubuque AveCitySouth San FranciscoCountySan MateoType (residential, commercial, mixed use, industrial, etc.)Lab/OfficeProject Size (# of units or building square feet)274k sqftTable 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 MEIDistance 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 PM2.51000+ 24795 Boston Properties 651 Gateway Boulevard 20.246 0.0315 0.3314 Generators, Boilers 2018 Dataset0.04 0.81 0.001 0.011000+ 24795 Boston Properties 611 Gateway Boulevard 1.77 0.00 0.00 Generators, Boilers 2018 Dataset0.04 0.07 0.000 0.001000+ 16024 Genentech, Inc 611 Gateway Boulevard 2.73 0.01 0.00 Generators 2018 Dataset0.04 0.11 0.000 0.001000+ 17649Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc Gateway Boulevard 9.31 0.01 0.01 Generators 2018 Dataset0.04 0.37 0.001 0.001000+ 18401 Lowe's HIW  Inc 720 Dubuque Avenue 9.47 0.00 0.01 Generators2018 Dataset 0.04 0.38 0.000 0.001000+ 19179 MacroGenics West,Inc One Corporate Drive 39.61 0.02 0.05 Generators 2018 Dataset 0.04 1.58 0.001 0.00100 20215 NOD Auto Body Shop Inc 110 Lux Ave 0.00Auto Body Coating Operation 2018 Dataset0.78 0.00 0.000 0.001000+ 20236Biotech Gateway ‐ HCP c/o CBRE 2 Corporate Drive 1.66 0.00 0.00 Generators 2018 Dataset0.04 0.07 0.000 0.00730 109214Unocal #1020 ‐‐Grand Martco Inc 221 Airport Blvd 24.52 0.11Gas Dispensing Facility 2018 Dataset0.03 0.61 0.003 0.001000+ 110786 Flyers #411 190 E Grand Ave 10.03 0.04Gas Dispensing Facility 2018 Dataset0.02 0.15 0.001 0.00200 201062 A&K Supreme Auto 510 CYPRESS AVE # 512 0.0048Auto Body Coating Operation 2018 Dataset0.64 0.00 0.003 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 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 Attachment 6: City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan Checklist         CULTURAL RECORDS SEARCH, NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION RESPONSE ATTACHMENT B to the 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration August 22, 2021 NWIC File No.: 21-0249 Rebecca Auld Lamphier- Gregory, Inc. 4100 Redwood Road, STE 20A - #601 Oakland, CA 94619 Re: Record search results for the proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue Project in the City of South San Francisco, CA. Dear Ms. Rebecca Auld: Per your request received by our office on the 12th of August, 2021, 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 San Mateo County. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or structures. As per information received by this office, the 1.89- acre project site was formerly used for industrial purposes but is currently vacant. The site includes Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-021-998. The project proposes to construct approximately 295,000 square feet of research & development/office space adjacent to the recently relocated South San Francisco Caltrain station. The project will involve excavation for subsurface parking and removal of contaminated soil extending to depths of about 48 to 60 feet below ground surface. Review of this information indicates that there have been five cultural resource studies that in total cover approximately 100% of the 580 Dubuque Avenue project area (see enclosed report listing). This 580 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 the proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue project area, 2            21‐0249  although there is one recorded property adjacent to the project area on Dubuque Avenue, the South San Francisco Freight Spur and Loading Platform (OTIS # 521430). This resource has a status code of 6Y, meaning this property was determined ineligible for the National Register by consensus through Section 106 process, Not evaluated for the California Register or local listing. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show no recorded buildings or structures within the proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue project area. At the time of Euroamerican contact the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of the Ramaytush language, part of the Costanoan/Ohlone language family (Levy 1978: 485). There are Native American resources in the general area of the proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue project area referenced in the ethnographic literature (Levy 1976, Nelson 1909). Using Milliken’s study of various mission records, the proposed project area is located within the lands of the Urebure tribe, whose territory was located "in the San Bruno Creek area just south of San Bruno Mountain on the San Francisco Peninsula. (Milliken 1995: 258-9). 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 the San Francisco Bay shore and inland 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 580 Dubuque Avenue project area is located west of Point San Bruno, approximately 40 meters west of the historic San Francisco Bay shore margins. Given the similarity of these environmental factors and the ethnographic sensitivity of the area, there is a moderate to high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue project area. Review of historical literature and maps indicated the possibility of historic-period activity within the 580 Dubuque Avenue project area. Early San Mateo County maps indicated the project area was located within the South San Francisco Land and Improvements Co., Abattoire (Bromfield 1894). In addition, the 1915 San Mateo USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangle indicated a portion of railroad spur within and adjacent to the project area. With this in mind, there is a moderate to high potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources to be within the proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue project area. 3            21‐0249  The 1956 photo revised 1980 San Francisco South USGS 7.5-minute depicts a railroad spur within and adjacent to the 580 Dubuque Avenue project area. If present, this unrecorded structure meets 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 moderate to high potential of identifying Native American archaeological resources and a moderate to high potential of identifying historic-period archaeological resources in the project area. Although previous studies included field survey of the project area, the 580 Dubuque Avenue project will involve excavation for subsurface parking and removal of contaminated soil extending to depths of about 48 to 60 feet below ground surface. Therefore, we recommend a qualified archaeologist conduct further archival and field study to identify possible buried cultural resources, and provided project specific recommendations. Field study may include, but is not limited to, pedestrian survey, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, or geoarchaeological analyses as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of 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) The proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue project area is located adjacent to, and may contain a portion of one recorded structure, the South San Francisco Freight Spur and Loading Platform (OTIS # 521430), with a status code of 6Y, that is included in the OHP BERD. Therefore, 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            21‐0249  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 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 5            21‐0249  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 6            21‐0249  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: 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. 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) 7  21‐0249  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. 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 Office of Historic Preservation ** 2020 Built Environment Resources Directory. Listing by City (through March 3, 2020). State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. **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 # 21-0249 580 Dubuque Avenue Project 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 1 of 5 NWIC 8/21/2021 11:54:21 PM Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs NWIC File # 21-0249 580 Dubuque Avenue Project 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 S-030760 2005 Archaeological Inventory for the South San Francisco Four-Tracking and New Station Project, Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Line, San Mateo County, California; From North of Tunnel Avenue in Brisbane, MP 6.1, to Colma Creek in San Bruno, MP 9.72 Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Laura Leach-Palm and Brian F. Byrd S-031824 2006 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, South San Francisco Station and Track Work Project; Brisbane and South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California; Caltrans Mile Posts: 06.10 to 10.60 JRP Historical ConsultingOHP PRN - FTA040913A S-031824a 2006 Archaeological Inventory for the South San Francisco Station and Track Work Project, Caltrain Peninsular Corridor Line, San Mateo County, California, From North of Tunnel Avenue in Brisbane, MP 6.1., to Scott Street in San Bruno, MP 10.6 Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Laura Leach-Palm and Brian F. Byrd S-031824b 2007 Finding of Effect (No Adverse Effect), South San Francisco Station and Track Work Project, San Mateo County, California Section 106 Consultation [ Section 106 Consultation (Rncl.02) on the South San Francisco Station and Track Work Project, San Mateo County, California Office of Historic Preservation Milford Wayne Donaldson Page 2 of 5 NWIC 8/21/2021 11:54:21 PM Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs NWIC File # 21-0249 580 Dubuque Avenue Project S-036747 2006 Finding of No Adverse Effect for the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, South San Francisco Station and Track Work Project, Brisbane, South San Francisco and San Bruno, San Mateo County, California, Caltrain Mile Posts: 06.10 to 10.60 JRP Historical ConsultingRand Herbert, Christopher Morris, and Cynthia Toffelier OHP PRN - FTA021021A S-036747a 2002 FTA021021A; Caltrain Electification Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara California Office of Historic Preservation Knox Mellon S-036747b 2006 FTA021021A; Caltrain Electification Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara California Office of Historic Preservation Milford Wayne Donaldson Page 3 of 5 NWIC 8/21/2021 11:54:21 PM Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs NWIC File # 21-0249 580 Dubuque Avenue Project 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 4 of 5 NWIC 8/21/2021 11:54:21 PM Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs NWIC File # 21-0249 580 Dubuque Avenue Project 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 5 of 5 NWIC 8/21/2021 11:54:21 PM STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Page 1 of 2 October 22, 2021 Rebecca Auld Lamphier-Gregory Via Email to: rauld@lamphier-gregory.com Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09,21084.2 and 21084.3, 580 Dubuque Ave. Project, San Mateo County. Dear Ms. Auld: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”) Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides: 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 AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources. The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as: 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: CHAIRPERSON Laura Miranda Luiseño VICE CHAIRPERSON Reginald Pagaling Chumash SECRETARY Merri Lopez-Keifer Luiseño PARLIAMENTARIAN Russell Attebery Karuk COMMISSIONER William Mungary Paiute/White Mountain Apache COMMISSIONER Julie Tumamait- Stenslie Chumash COMMISSIONER [Vacant] COMMISSIONER [Vacant] COMMISSIONER [Vacant] EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Christina Snider Pomo 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 • A listing of any and all known cultural resources that 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 any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative. 4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and 5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE. Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are 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 will 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: Katy.Sanchez@nahc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Katy Sanchez Associate Environmental Planner Attachment Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contacts List October 22, 2021 Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson 3030 Soda Bay Road Lakeport 95453 (650) 851-7489 Cell (650) 851-7747 Office Ohlone/Costanoan CA, amahmutsuntribal@gmail.com (650) 332-1526 Fax Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista This list is current 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, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 580 Dubuque Ave. Project San Mateo County. Tony Cerda, Chairman 244 E. 1st Street Pomona 91766 (909) 629-6081 Ohlone/Costanoan CA, rumsen@aol.com (909) 524-8041 Fax Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe This list is current 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, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 580 Dubuque Ave. Project San Mateo County. Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson P.O. Box 28 Hollister 95024 (831) 637-4238 Ohlone/Costanoan CA, ams@indiancanyons.org Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan This list is current 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, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 580 Dubuque Ave. Project San Mateo County. Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson 20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232 Castro Valley 94546 (408) 464-2892 Ohlone / Costanoan CA, cnijmeh@muwekma.org (408) 205-9714 Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area This list is current 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, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 580 Dubuque Ave. Project San Mateo County. Quirina Luna Geary, Chairperson P.O. Box 8053 San Jose 95155 (707) 295-4011 Ohlone/Costanoan CA, qgeary@tamien.org Tamien Nation This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Andrew Galvan P.O. Box 3388 Fremont 94539 (510) 882-0527 Cell Ohlone Bay Miwok Plains Miwok Patwin CA, chochenyo@AOL.com (510) 687-9393 Fax The Ohlone Indian Tribe This list is current 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, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 580 Dubuque Ave. Project San Mateo County. Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson 1179 Rock Haven Ct. Salinas 93906 (831) 443-9702 Foothill Yokuts Mono Wuksache CA, kwood8934@aol.com Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band This list is current 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, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed: 580 Dubuque Ave. Project San Mateo County. .       CALIFORNIA LAND REUSE AND REVITALIZATION ACT (CLRRA) AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT C to the 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration       TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ATTACHMENT D to the 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration   580 Dubuque Avenue Transportation Analysis Prepared for: Lamphier-Gregory January 18, 2022 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Hexagon Office: 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Phone: 408.971.6100 Hexagon Job Number: 21TD01 Client Name: Lamphier-Gregory 580 Dubuque Avenue January 18, 2022 Page | 1 This report includes an analysis of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and an evaluation of potential impacts to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities for the proposed Office/Research & Development building at 580 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 580 Dubuque Avenue January 18, 2022 Page | 2 Project Description This report presents the results of the CEQA transportation analysis (TA) conducted for the proposed Office/ Research & Development (R&D) building at 580 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco, California. The project proposes to construct approximately 295,000 square feet of Lab/ R&D and office space (inclusive of a 4,000 square feet café) adjacent to the new South San Francisco Caltrain station. The development is consistent with the proposed 2040 General Plan update, which plans for higher- density, transit-oriented uses at and around the project site. Structured parking would be provided in four stories below grade, with approximately 350 parking spaces. Vehicular access to the project would be provided via Dubuque Avenue. 580 Dubuque Avenue January 18, 2022 Page | 3 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 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 adjacent to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. The project is proposing an FAR of 3.19, fewer than required parking spaces, is consistent with the land use zoning that is proposed under the City’s 2040 General Plan Update and would develop a vacant site. Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis would not be required. The project would also implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program as required by the Municipal Code, which 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 28% alternative mode use. The project would also provide parking that is less than the parking required by the code 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 would imply a less than significant cumulative impact. Also, the project is consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan. Shape SSF 2040 is an update to the City’s currently General Plan that is currently in progress. The project aligns with the updated land use controls currently proposed under the 2040 General Plan Update, which plans for higher-density, transit-oriented uses at and around the project site: reimagining 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. Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis Pedestrian: 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. A metal staircase on the northeast corner and a crosswalk across the east leg of the signalized Dubuque Avenue/E Grand Avenue intersection currently provide connections for pedestrians 580 Dubuque Avenue January 18, 2022 Page | 4 from areas east of the Caltrain tracks and downtown areas to the Caltrain station. As part of the South San Francisco Caltrain Reconstruction Project that is currently in progress, an underpass is being constructed that would provide a direct connection for pedestrians and bicyclists between areas to the west and east of the Caltrain tracks. This underpass would also provide a connection to the new Caltrain station platform. As the project is located adjacent to the Caltrain station, the new underpass would provide an alternative pedestrian connection between the project, downtown destinations, and areas to the east of the Caltrain tracks. 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 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 provide a clear walkway between the existing sidewalk on Dubuque Avenue and the main building entrance that would be provided on the north side of the building. A pedestrian walkway with landscaping and lighting would be constructed along the western edge of the property along the access road that would run parallel to Dubuque Avenue. The project will coordinate with Caltrain/Joint Powers Board (JPB) who currently own the parcels to the south and east of the project site to provide pedestrian access between the project site and the Caltrain station in a permittable and accessible manner. The project is anticipated to have a less-than-significant impact on the existing and planned pedestrian facilities. Bicycle: 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). 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. According to the South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan, Class III Bicycle Routes are proposed along Dubuque Avenue between E Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard. Class III Bicycle Routes are recommended on roadways frequently used by bicyclists that do not have the necessary right-of-way (ROW) for installing bicycle lanes. Bicycle Routes are identified by either signs or shared lane markings and they typically have a shared wide outside lane for vehicles and bicycles. Because additional ROW from the project site is not necessary to implement the planned bicycle facility along Dubuque Avenue, the project would not conflict with existing and planned bicycle facilities. Therefore, the impact to bicycle facilities would be less-than-significant. Transit: The City of South San Francisco, in partnership with Caltrain is currently reconstructing the South San Francisco Caltrain station, which is expected to be completed by November 2021. The reconstructed station includes a new median platform, underpass entrances connecting to downtown and East Grand Avenue, and a shuttle loading area along Poletti Way. Combined with the Caltrain Electrification project, the reconstructed station is expected to see increased service levels, which has been included in Caltrain planning. Since the project is located adjacent to the Caltrain station, it is expected to generate trips via transit services. According to OPR guidelines, the addition of new transit riders should not be treated as an adverse impact as such development also improves regional flow by adding less vehicle travel onto the regional network. Therefore, the project is anticipated to have a less-than-significant impact on transit facilities and services. Safety A project safety impact is considered significant if the proposed project would provide inadequate design features that present safety concerns within the project site or on the adjacent streets. Vehicles would access the project site from an existing driveway on Dubuque Avenue that would also provide 580 Dubuque Avenue January 18, 2022 Page | 5 access to the Caltrain station parking lot. The existing site access roadway would be reconstructed along the western property boundary. Visitor drop-offs would occur at the entry plaza located at the northwest corner of the project site. Parking access would be provided along the south end of the building. In order to address potential conflict in vehicular movement on the Caltrain access road and internal roads serving the project site, the project will install stop signs at each intersecting point for exiting vehicles (see Figure 1). According to the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue is 30 mph. Although the project would not construct any new driveways on Dubuque Avenue, the project should coordinate with the City of South San Francisco to improve sight distance for vehicles exiting onto Dubuque Avenue. Field observations showed that the curved alignment of Dubuque Avenue combined with the fence/retaining wall impacts the visibility of northbound traffic for drivers exiting onto Dubuque Avenue from the Caltrain station parking lot. Additionally, signs attached to the fence and vegetation at the corner of the property to the north obstruct sight distance between southbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared project and Caltrain driveway under existing conditions. Because the proposed project would add traffic to the existing driveway on Dubuque Avenue, the project would result in a potential safety impact. The following mitigation would improve the safety at the intersection of Dubuque Avenue the shared Caltrain /project driveway. Transportation Mitigation 1: Shared Dubuque Avenue Driveway Safety Improvements. The applicant shall coordinate the following safety improvements for the intersection of Dubuque Avenue and the shared Caltrain / project driveway to provide adequate sight distance between northbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway. a) The applicant shall coordinate with the City to decrease the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue to 25 mph. b) The applicant shall coordinate with the City to reduce the height of the fence along the retaining wall on Dubuque Avenue to the south of the project site to improve visibility of approaching northbound traffic. Additionally, the applicant shall coordinate with the City and adjacent properties as reasonably feasible to address existing sight distance obstructions at the intersection of Dubuque Avenue and the shared Caltrain / project driveway as follows: c) Coordinate with Caltrain to relocate or reduce the height of the existing “Caltrain Station Parking” sign located on the south side of the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway to provide adequate sight distance between northbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway. d) Coordinate with the property owner to the north to clear obstructing signs and vegetation from the corner of their property to provide adequate sight distance between southbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the shared Caltrain / project Dubuque Avenue driveway would have adequate sight distance and the project would not result in significant safety impacts. 580 Dubuque Avenue January 18, 2022 Page | 6 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 existing site access roadway that would be reconstructed along the western property boundary would accommodate emergency vehicles. Thus, the project would not result in any emergency vehicle access impact that would be considered significant. Conclusions The project would not result in a potentially significant impact to VMT relative to employee trips as the project site is located within ¼ mile of the South San Francisco Caltrain station. 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 28% alternative mode use. The project would also provide parking that is less than the parking required by the code to encourage employees and visitors to use transit. Given its proximity to the Caltrain station and reduced on-site parking spaces, the project is expected to achieve a higher than the minimum 28% alternative mode use. The project would not result in any impacts to existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities. With mitigation, the project would not result in any significant safety impacts. The project would not result in any significant emergency vehicle access impacts. 580 Dubuque CEQA Analysis Figure 1 Proposed On-Site Circulation and Stop Signs STOP STO P STOPSTOP LEGEND = Drop-Off Circulation = Caltrain Parking Lot Access = Project Parking Garage Access = Recommended Stop SignSTOP  NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND  NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE  DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED   580 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT     NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: that the City of South San Francisco Planning Division has completed the  Initial  Study/  Mitigated  Negative  Declaration  (IS/MND)  for  the 580  Dubuque  Avenue  Project.  This  IS/MND is now available for public review and comment. The IS/MND may be accessed on the City’s  website  at https://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/ under  Planning  Division/Environmental  Reports  (https://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/Browse.aspx?dbid=0).    Physical copies of the IS/MND and all documents incorporated by reference are available for review at  the Planning Division at 315 Maple Avenue. Additional physical copies of the IS/MND are available at the  Orange Avenue Library at 804 W. Orange Avenue, the Grand Avenue Library at 306 Walnut Avenue, and  the City Clerk’s Office at 400 Grand Avenue.  PROJECT LOCATION: The 1.89‐acre project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015‐021‐998) is located in the  City of South San Francisco, California at the southern end of Dubuque Avenue, north of the Grand  Avenue overpass as it intersects with U.S. 101. It is bordered by Dubuque Avenue and the U.S. 101  highway  on  the  west,  the  Caltrain  right‐of‐way  and  station  property  on  the  east  and  south,  and  development and parking on the 720 Dubuque Avenue parcel to the north. Figure 1 shows the project  location. As a part of the Caltrain station relocation and upgrade, the project site was recently used for  construction staging. The project site is currently vacant and fenced.  The site is impacted by contamination from historic and adjacent uses, mostly due to historic railroad  use of the site and undocumented fill. The main contamination of concern is mainly low levels of lead  and other metals in the soil. Removal of impacted soil is proposed as part of the project (see below).  PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project applicant, South City Ventures, LLC, is proposing construction and  operation of a new 295,000‐square‐foot, 8‐story, office / research and development (R&D) building and  structured parking 4 stories below grade, with approximately 350  parking  spaces.  Project  site  improvements would also include sidewalks, landscaping, and lighting along Dubuque Avenue. Ground  floor amenities would include a fitness center, conference space, and a café with an adjacent outdoor  terrace near the building’s entry lobby. The applicant is targeting life science tenants. Figure 2 shows the  site plan.  The site is within the boundaries of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP). However, the site  was not specifically indicated for development in the DSASP as it was in use as part of the Caltrain  station  property  at  the  time,  prior  to  the  station  relocation  and  upgrade.  Project  applicants  are  requesting a rezoning from Freeway Commercial to Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District; Transit  Office/R&D  Core Subdistrict as well  as a related  General Plan Amendment (land use  map and  text  amendments), East of 101 Area Plan Amendment, Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendment  (land  use  map  and  text  amendments),  Zoning  Map  Amendments,  Conditional  Use  Permits  (Parking  Reduction, Floor Area Ratio Increase), Design Review, and a Transportation Demand Management Plan.  Project construction activities are anticipated to span approximately 2 years. The project would involve  removal of contaminated soil, with approximately 5 to 9 feet of soil being removed across 60% of the  site and disposal of the contaminated soil off site. Excavation for subsurface parking would extend to  depths of up to about 60 feet below ground surface and would require construction during excavation.  Site preparation and foundation work would run approximately the first 9 months, followed by building  580 Dubuque Project ‐ Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration  Page 2 of 4  construction over about 12 months and finishing/paving/landscaping over about 3 months. A total of  about 325 workers are anticipated to be onsite throughout the construction process.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The IS/MND that has been prepared for the project concludes that impacts  of the project are considered to be less than significant with mandatory  compliance  with  existing  federal,  State  and  local  standards  and  the  implementation  of  mitigation  measures  listed  in  the  document. Mitigation measures relate to minimizing potential construction‐period impacts, including  construction dust and emissions best practices; surveys for and buffering of nesting birds; monitoring for  and  appropriate  response  to  undocumented  cultural,  paleontological,  or  tribal  cultural  resources;  compliance with design plans prepared by appropriate engineers; implementation of a Response Plan  pursuant to the previously‐approved CLRRA Agreement   (Docket No HSA‐FY19/20‐013)   in coordination  with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to safely remove the contaminated soil at  the  project  site;  and  implementation  of  measures  to  improve  driver site distance at the shared  project/Caltrain parking lot driveway intersection with Dubuque Avenue. Implementation of the project  would not degrade the quality and extent of the environment or result in adverse effects on human  beings, provided the project adheres  to all mandated policies, rules and regulations of  all relevant  governing bodies.  PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENT PERIOD: The City of South San Francisco is soliciting comments regarding  the  analysis  contained  in  the  IS/MND. All  comments  must  be  received  by  the  City  of  South  San  Francisco Planning Division no later than 5:00 PM on February 17, 2022. Written comments on the  IS/MND may be sent via email or U.S. mail and addressed to:      Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner      City of South San Francisco  Economic and Community Development Department      315 Maple Avenue  South San Francisco, CA 94080  Comments may also be sent via email to Christopher.Espiritu@ssf.net  For comments sent via email, please include “MND Comments: 580 Dubuque Project” in the subject line  and the name and physical address of the commenter in the body of the email.     For additional information please contact Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner at (650) 877‐8535 and/or  Christopher.Espiritu@ssf.net.          Date:  January 19, 2022      Christopher.Espiritu@ssf.net    Telephone:   (650) 877‐8535      580 Dubuque Avenue Project ‐ Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration  Page 3 of 4   Figure 1: Project Location  580 Dubuque Project ‐ Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration  Page 4 of 4   Figure 2: Project Site Plan 580 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT ‐ MMRP  PAGE 1 OF 9 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility VerificationMonitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed Air Quality Mitigation Measure Air‐1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The project shall demonstrate proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits, including implementation of the following BAAQMD “Basic Construction Mitigation Measures”: 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 track‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, unless the City Engineer determines that an alternative cleaning method would achieve the same standard of air pollution prevention and also reduce the potential for stormwater pollution.  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. vi) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. vii) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All Prior to issuance of all grading and construction permits  ‐and‐  During grading and construction Applicant  Verify construction contractors provide acknowledgment of requirements   ‐and‐  Verify requirements are met during grading and construction SSF Building Division  PAGE 2 OF 9       580 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT ‐ MMRP Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility VerificationMonitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. viii) 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 Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Biological Resources 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. or California Fish and Wildlife Services (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 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 Prior to issuance of grading permit, if during nesting period  ‐and‐  Prior to issuance of any subsequent grading or construction permit if during nesting period Applicant  Verify completion of survey and, if birds present, provision of buffer  ‐and‐  Confirm no gap in activity over 14 days or verify updated survey SSF Planning Division  580 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT ‐ MMRP  PAGE 3 OF 9 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility VerificationMonitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed activities of more than 14 consecutive days during the nesting season. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures Cul‐1: Sampling and/or Monitoring Plan. Prior to ground disturbance, a qualified archaeologist shall draft project specific recommendations for sampling and/or monitoring for subsurface paleontological, archaeological, and/or tribal resources during excavation as determined necessary based on records searches and previous studies of the site.  Next steps could include additional exploration prior to construction, monitoring of site disturbance by a qualified professional, or no additional action other than that specified in Cul‐2, Cul‐3, and Cul‐4. The plan and supporting reasoning shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco for approval and the applicant shall be responsible for implementing the plan and any follow‐up actions determined to be necessary. Prior to issuance of grading permits Applicant  Verify submittal of plan and verify requirements are met during construction SSF Building Division Mitigation Measures Cul‐2: 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 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. Prior to issuance of construction permits   ‐and‐  Prior to initiation of grading or excavation Applicant  Verify construction contractors provide acknowledgment of requirements  ‐and‐  Verify requirements are met during construction SSF Building Division  PAGE 4 OF 9       580 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT ‐ MMRP Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility VerificationMonitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed Mitigation Measures Cul‐3: 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 are implemented by the project applicant to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code. Prior to issuance of grading permits  ‐and‐  During grading Applicant  Verify construction contractors provide acknowledgment of requirements  ‐and‐  Verify requirements are met during construction SSF Building Division Mitigation Measures Cul‐4: 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 and, if the remains are Native American, in accordance with section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. Prior to issuance of grading permits  ‐and‐  During grading Applicant  Verify construction contractors provide acknowledgment of requirements  ‐and‐  Verify requirements are met during construction SSF Building Division Geology and Soils 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, Prior to issuance of building permits Applicant Verify construction contractors provide acknowledgement of geotechnical recommendations  SSF Building Division  580 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT ‐ MMRP  PAGE 5 OF 9 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility VerificationMonitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure Haz‐1: Response Plan Implementation and Completion. The applicant shall coordinate with DTSC to implement a Response Plan pursuant to the previously‐approved CLRRA Agreement (Docket No HSA‐FY19/20‐013) to appropriately mitigate soil contamination. Evidence of plan approval by DTSC shall be submitted to the City prior to initiation of earth‐moving at the site and a Certificate of Completion (or other no further action documentation) shall be submitted prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. While details will be coordinated with DTSC, the following components are anticipated to be included in the Response Plan: 1.  Soil Management. The proposed construction activities will disturb soil during the excavation, site grading, construction of new foundations, and installation of utility lines. During excavation activities, air monitoring and dust control measures will be implemented. The soil management objectives for the site are to control exposure of potentially hazardous constituents in soil to construction workers, nearby residents and/or pedestrians, and future users of the site, all implemented pursuant to the DTSC‐approved plan. The components of the Response Plan will establish and maintain required health and safety procedures to control worker and public exposure to site contaminants during construction including but not necessarily limited to the elements listed below. 2.  Dust Control. During handling of potentially contaminated soils, an enhanced dust control plan with provisions to protect construction workers and the public will be implemented through engineering controls, to control generation of dust and resulting off‐site migration of contaminants in site soil. Dust Prior to issuance of grading permits  ‐and‐  During construction Applicant  Verify DTSC approval and construction contractors provide acknowledgement of requirements  ‐and‐  Verify requirements are met during construction SSF Building Division  PAGE 6 OF 9       580 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT ‐ MMRP Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility VerificationMonitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed control measures will include:  • Community air monitoring.  • Covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting. •  Watering uncovered ground surface at the site to prevent  visible dust from becoming air‐borne.  •  Misting or spraying of soil as required during excavation  and loading.  • Placement of gravel and/or rubble plates on unpaved site access roads as feasible.  • Covering of trucks hauling contaminated soil from the site with a tarpaulin or other cover.  • Reducing to as low as feasible the soil drop from an excavator’s bucket onto soil piles or into transport trucks.  • Deployment of windbreaks as necessary.  • Posting on‐site vehicle speed limits.  • Street sweeping of public streets as required when soils are visible.  • Termination of excavation and loading activities if winds exceed 15 mph.  • Addition of soil stabilizers and other responses as needed. 3.  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 prepared by a certified industrial hygienist representing the contractor. The purpose of the Health and Safety Plan is to provide field personnel with an understanding of the potential chemical and physical hazards, protection of any off‐site receptors, procedures for entering the project site, health and safety procedures, and emergency response to hazards should they occur. All project personnel shall undergo the identified health and safety training, and read and adhere to the procedures established in the Health and Safety Plan. A copy of the Health and Safety Plan shall be kept on site during  580 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT ‐ MMRP  PAGE 7 OF 9 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility VerificationMonitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed field activities and reviewed and updated as necessary.  The Health and Safety Plan will describe the 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 and groundwater.  4.  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.  5.  Groundwater Management. Construction dewatering is anticipated based on development plans, however, per analytic results of groundwater sampling, it is anticipated the groundwater from the site will be able to be discharged into the sanitary sewer system with no additional treatment. While not anticipated to be included as a required element of the Response Plan, 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. In the event of the presence of regulated levels of contamination, measures will be taken to comply with applicable requirements. 6.  Contingency Plans for Unknown/Unexpected Conditions. The following tasks shall be implemented during excavation activities if unanticipated hazardous materials are encountered. Such materials may include unaccounted for underground storage tanks 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  PAGE 8 OF 9       580 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT ‐ MMRP Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility VerificationMonitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed encountered and cover with plastic sheets. •  Notify the site safety officer and site superintendent.  •  Have an appropriate professional conduct a site inspection and determine appropriate follow‐up actions, which would include appropriate handling and removal of the identified hazard. •  Review the existing health and safety plan for revisions, if necessary, and have appropriately trained personnel on‐site to work with the affected materials as required by applicable requirements. Transportation Mitigation Measure Trans‐1: Shared Dubuque Avenue Driveway Safety Improvements.  The applicant shall coordinate the following safety improvements for the intersection of Dubuque Avenue and the shared Caltrain / project driveway to provide adequate sight distance between northbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway.  a)  The applicant shall coordinate with the City to decrease the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue to 25 mph. b)  The applicant shall coordinate with the City to reduce the height of the fence along the retaining wall on Dubuque Avenue to the south of the project site to improve visibility of approaching northbound traffic.   Additionally, the applicant shall coordinate with the City and adjacent properties as reasonably feasible to address existing sight distance obstructions at the intersection of Dubuque Avenue and the shared Caltrain / project driveway as follows: c)  Coordinate with Caltrain to relocate or reduce the height of the existing “Caltrain Station Parking” sign located on the south side of the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway to provide adequate sight distance between northbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy Applicant  Confirm implementation or plan for implementation SSF Public Works Department  580 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT ‐ MMRP  PAGE 9 OF 9 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility VerificationMonitoring Action Monitoring ResponsibilityDate Completed driveway. d)  Coordinate with the property owner to the north to clear obstructing signs from the fence and vegetation from the corner of their property to provide adequate sight distance between southbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway.  Zoning Map Amendment - 580 Dubuque Avenue PQP TO/RD BC Business Commerc ial DRC Downtown Residen tial Core FC Fre eway Co mmercial BTP Business Technology Park DRH Downtown Residential High DIVIX Downtown Mixed-Use DTC Downtown Transit Core DRC Downtown Residential Core DTC Downtown Transit Core GA C Grand Avenue Core GSPD Gateway Specific Plan District LNC Linden Neighb orhood Center G f!O BC BTP PD Pl anned Developme nt PQP Public/Quasi Public PR Parks and Recreation TO/RD Tran.sit Offi ce/R&D Core